TAXPAYER REFUND ACT OF 1999
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
TAXPAYER REFUND ACT OF 1999
(Senate - July 30, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages S9885-
S9937]
TAXPAYER REFUND ACT OF 1999
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of
S. 1429, which the clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:
A bill (
S. 1429) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
section 104 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2000.
Pending:
Bingaman amendment No. 1462, to express the sense of the
Senate regarding investment in education.
Hutchison modified amendment No. 1472, to provide for the
relief of the marriage tax penalty beginning in the year
2001.
Roth (for Grassley) amendment No. 1388, making technical
corrections to the Saver Act.
Roth (for Abraham) amendment No. 1411, to provide that no
Federal income tax shall be imposed on amounts received, and
lands recovered, by Holocaust victims for their heirs.
Roth (for Sessions) amendment No. 1412, to provide for the
Collegiate Learning and Students Savings (CLASS) Act title.
Roth (for Collins/Coverdell) modified amendment No. 1446,
to eliminate the 2-percent floor on miscellaneous itemized
deductions for qualified professional development and
incidental expenses of elementary and secondary school
teachers.
Roth (for Abraham) amendment No. 1455, to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the deduction for
computer donations to schools and to allow a tax credit for
donated computers.
amendment no. 1462
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 15
minutes equally divided with respect to the Bingaman amendment No.
1462.
Who yields time?
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time is allotted to me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minute
s 30 seconds.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield myself 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment I presented yesterday and
that we are going to vote on first this morning is a simple statement
that we should reduce the size of the tax cut that is proposed by $132
billion so that we will have funds available to maintain the current
level of effort in support of education. It, I grant you, is a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution. It does not ensure that the money is spent
there, but to my mind it at least reserves those funds so we can
maintain the current level of effort in support of education. In other
words, I believe we should be on record for funding education at least
at current levels before we settle on the size of the tax cut that we
can afford.
Some might ask why am I singling out education. Well,
S. 1429 is more
[[Page
S9886]]
than just a tax bill; it is a reconciliation bill, which means, at
least in rough form, it purports to set national priorities for the
next 10 years. I believe that a very top priority should be providing
quality education to the young people of this Nation. Our future
depends more on that investment than it does on virtually any other
investment we might make.
So if education is a priority, what is the relationship of this tax
cut bill to education? Now, as I understand the estimates for the next
10 years, the tax cut bill is so large that it will require us to make
significant cuts in discretionary spending, including education, in
this coming decade, and that is the concern I have and that is what has
prompted this amendment.
Yesterday, as I was describing the amendment, I was informed that my
concern is unfounded; that in fact even after the tax cut--and I know
people do not like to have it referred to as a massive tax cut; I
notice that is what the Wall Street Journal called it this morning in
their headline--there will be plenty of discretionary funds for
education. That was the information I was given.
So let me look at the figures I have and see where I am confused on
this and where I have misunderstood the situation.
First of all, we all expect a surplus, and that is why we are having
this debate and talking about cutting taxes in the first place. So we
all agree to that. We also all agree that the portion of that surplus
attributable to Social Security should be left for Social Security. And
that is about $1.9 trillion. There is no dispute about that that I am
aware of, at least in this debate.
So after we take that out, what is left? At the beginning of the
debate, the Congressional Budget Office came out with the figure in the
range of $1 trillion, the non-Social Security-related surplus. So that
is represented here. This chart shows CBO, Congressional Budget Office.
This column represents the non-Social Security surplus as it was
understood by me when we started the debate.
Now I am informed that we have a new estimate and that the surplus is
not going to be $2.8 trillion over the next 10 years; instead, it is
going to be over $3.3 trillion. So there is going to be substantially
more money. The question is, Where did we find this additional $400 to
$500 billion?
Mr. President, let me yield myself 1 more minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. It was arrived at by assuming that less money is going
to be spent on discretionary spending during the 10 years. The
Congressional Budget Office assumed that $595 billion would be cut in
discretionary spending. The new claim is that there is going to be $1
trillion cut, and that by cutting discretionary spending by $1 trillion
instead of by $595 billion, we are going to have extra money that we
can turn around and spend on discretionary accounts.
Mr. President, that doesn't add up in my mind. I believe
discretionary accounts are important. I believe education has to be at
the top of that list. I do not see where we can expect to find the
money to maintain current levels of effort on education if we vote for
this very large tax cut. That is why the size of the tax cut should be
reduced so that education programs will not have to be cut.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 25 seconds.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the balance of my time to the Senator from
Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman. This is a very
important amendment that he has offered. Certainly, as we are talking
about what the future of our country is going to be, we should be
looking at what we are doing to invest in our young children today so
they can be economically viable when they graduate from high school and
college 15, 20 years from now, making sure that we have the money there
for the Head Start Program, Pell grants, early childhood education.
These are important investments in our children, and if we follow
through on a massive tax cut at this time, as the Senator from New
Mexico has said, in the future we will not have the money to make sure
that our kids get the kind of education they need to be viable members
of our community. This is a very important amendment.
As we come to the end of this debate about what we are going to do to
invest in our future, let's remember that if we put in place a tax cut
such as this, we will harm our young children, we will harm Social
Security and Medicare and critical programs for women in this country
to make sure they don't live in poverty. We will not be able to pay off
our debt, a very important issue that is facing us, which we have not
left ourselves room for with a massive tax cut of this size.
Most critically, we will not be able to do what we have a
responsibility to do, not only as Senators but as parents and as adults
in this country, to make sure that those who follow us have the skills
they need to make sure this country continues to run well in the
future. Investment in Pell grants and in early childhood education, and
investment in education, class size reduction, and training of our
teachers will make a difference for the future. We have a
responsibility to do that.
I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his work on education, and I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as I said yesterday, I don't normally
take to the Senate floor and speak in opposition to an amendment of my
colleague from New Mexico. But I did yesterday, and I must this morning
because if this amendment is reported in New Mexico, and if it says to
constituents of our State that the budget resolution we adopted, and
what will be left over after the tax cut would decimate education, then
it would appear to me that I must answer because that isn't true.
First of all, the Senator from New Mexico, my colleague, is at least
not as sensational in his approach as the President was yesterday. The
President even knows right down to the nickel what is not going to be
spent in education. That is impossible. He says that 544,000 kids
aren't going to be able to learn to read. That is ludicrous. If that is
the kind of talk he needs to defeat a tax bill, then good luck to him.
It is just absolutely untrue.
Let's get the facts as I remember and understand them. We produced a
budget resolution. It is nothing new with reference to the taxes; $792
billion spread out over 10 years was the tax cut in that bill. We also
allocated the remaining money for the next decade and, incidentally, in
doing that, even though there was a reduction in discretionary
spending, the highest priority domestic program was education, for all
the reasons stated on the floor by Senator Murray and Senator Bingaman.
It is terribly important that we use our education dollars right and
better but that there be more of them. We put $37 billion in additional
money during the first 5 years of that budget for education.
Now, what happened after that? After that, some 3 months later, the
Congressional Budget Office did a midsession review and told us there
was more money than that. As a matter of fact, there was $170 billion
more in the surplus account. We didn't add some of that to the tax cut.
It is sitting there. What I did, so that everyone would understand, I
said let's look at this surplus in the chart I used yesterday, and
let's assume that we freeze discretionary spending and ask CBO how much
money would then be available to put back into discretionary accounts
during the decade.
They told us: We don't know whether you will use it in discretionary
accounts. We can't say that.
But there is $505 billion that could be added into priority spending.
I believe that means all of the discretionary spending can go up
significantly and you can establish education as a high-priority item
and fund it at levels higher than we have now, which I think
Republicans will do if we have reform in the educational allowances of
the Federal Government, so that there is accountability and flexibility
in the programs that we send there.
I believe what my colleague from New Mexico is expressing on the
floor
[[Page
S9887]]
is a sincere desire that we be sure that in the discretionary accounts
we fund education adequately. If that is what he was saying, I join
with him in saying that is true. But when he says you need to take $122
billion--or whatever the number is--out of the tax cut in order to do
that, I disagree. I don't think you have to do that.
Plain and simple, I think there is plenty of discretionary money
available. I add, if you use the President's numbers on Medicare--and
he said you only needed $46 billion to fix prescription drugs--you have
$505 billion, less the $46 billion, and all the rest can go to
discretionary spending in the next decade. I am not trying to mislead
anybody. In order to understand it, I said start with the premise that
we freeze all these accounts and put in what is left. If you look at
the budget resolution, we put $181 billion into those accounts, with
education being the highest priority. It just happens there is more
than that $181 billion because the midsession review added many
billions of dollars in accumulated surplus.
I am fully aware that Senator Bingaman, my colleague, has regularly
and consistently as a member of the Committee on Education, and on the
floor, been a promoter and a staunch supporter of education. I agree
with him, but I believe he is wrong in thinking that we have to reduce
the tax cut in order to be sure we do that. I also remind everybody
that there are some very significant education programs in this tax
bill. It makes it easier to continue your education because it has
allowances, credits, and deductions in the adult education area. It
makes it easier to pay off student loans. It makes college more
affordable, and it provides tax exempt financing for school
construction. All of that is in the Roth bill.
Whatever time I had remaining, I yield back.
I make a point of order that the Bingaman amendment No. 1462 is
extraneous to the bill before us. Therefore, I raise a point of order
under section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of
that act for the consideration of the pending amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 1472, As Further Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 15
minutes equally divided for concluding remarks with respect to the
Hutchison of Texas amendment, No. 1472.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, under the previous unanimous consent
agreement, I send a modification of the amendment to the desk to
amendment No. 1472.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 1472), as further modified, is as follows:
On page 10, line 6, strike ``2004'' and insert ``2005''.
On page 10, strike the matter between lines 19 and 20, and
insert:
Applicable
``Calendar year: dollar amount:
2006 or 2007..............................................$4,000 ....
2008 and thereafter......................................$5,000. ....
On page 11, strike the matter before line 1, and insert:
Applicable
``Calendar year: dollar amount:
2006 or 2007..............................................$2,000 ....
2008 and thereafter......................................$2,500. ....
On page 11, line 3, strike ``2007'' and insert ``2008''.
On page 11, line 11, strike ``2006'' and insert ``2007''.
On page 32, between lines 14 and 15, insert:
SEC. ____. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD
DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) (relating
to standard deduction) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and
inserting ``twice the dollar amount in effect under
subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'',
(2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B),
(3) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in
subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.'', and
(4) by striking subparagraph (D).
(b) Phase-in.--Subsection (c) of section 63 is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Phase-in of increase in basic standard deduction.--In
the case of taxable years beginning before January 1, 2008--
``(A) paragraph (2)(A) shall be applied by substituting for
`twice'--
``(i) `1.671 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2001,
``(ii) `1.70 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2002,
``(iii) `1.727 times' in the case of taxable years
beginning during 2003,
``(iv) `1.837 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2004,
``(v) `1.951 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2005,
``(vi) `1.953 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2006, and
``(vii) `1.973 times' in the case of taxable years
beginning during 2007, and
``(B) the basic standard deduction for a married individual
filing a separate return shall be one-half of the amount
applicable under paragraph (2)(A).
If any amount determined under subparagraph (A) is not a
multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the next
lowest multiple of $50.''.
(c) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(6) is amended by
striking ``(other than with'' and all that follows through
``shall be applied'' and inserting ``(other than with respect
to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be applied''.
(2) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) is amended by adding at
the end the following flush sentence:
``The preceding sentence shall not apply to the amount
referred to in paragraph (2)(A).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
On page 38, line 18, strike ``2000'' and insert ``2002''.
On page 236, strike line 12 through the matter following
line 21, and insert:
(a) In General.--Section 2503(b) (relating to exclusions
from gifts) is amended--
(1) by striking the following:
``(b) Exclusions From Gifts.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of gifts'',
(2) by inserting the following:
``(b) Exclusions From Gifts.--In the case of gifts'',
(3) by striking paragraph (2), and
(4) by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$20,000''.
On page 237, line 3, strike ``2000'' and insert ``2004''.
On page 262, strike line
s 15 through 17, and insert:
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2004, and before January 1, 2007.
On page 270, line 18, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2004''.
On page 273, line 21, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2004''.
On page 275, line 12, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2004''.
On page 277, line 13, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2005''.
On page 278, line 13, strike ``2002'' and insert ``2004''.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I now yield 2 minutes to Senator
Ashcroft of Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from
Texas for her outstanding work correcting a pernicious discrimination
against the most valuable institution in our society, the family. I
thank the chairman for his sensitivity to this important issue, for
placing in this bill procedures to remedy the marriage penalty.
The marriage penalty simply is an anomaly. It is a strangeness in the
tax structure that has evolved, that penalizes people for being
married. It puts them into higher tax brackets when they get married
than when they were single. When people get married, they start paying
a tax penalty. That is something we should stop.
The Senator from Texas and the chairman of this committee have agreed
that we should stop it. And we should, as a matter of fact, according
to the amendment of the Senator from Texas, of which I am an original
cosponsor along with Senator Brownback, accelerate the time at which we
begin to stop this very serious fault with the tax system.
America should not penalize the family. It should not make it harder
for people to have families. It should not make it financially more
difficult for two people to be married and live together than unmarried
and live together. That is a simple fact. It is because the family is
the best department of social services, the best department of
education; it is the best place in which individuals are enriched to
learn individual responsibility and the values and character our
culture needs to survive.
[[Page
S9888]]
I am very pleased to be a part of this tax measure which will say
about America's families that we cherish them rather than punish them
and it is time for all of us to join together and eliminate the
marriage tax penalty.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Who yields time? The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is the 4
minutes from my 7\1/2\ minutes?
Mr. ROTH. I am yielding this from my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. ROTH. Actually, Mr. President, I want to add my support for the
amendment put forward by Senator Hutchison. It builds on the basic
objectives of the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999, particularly objectives
of helping families bring greater equity to the Tax Code.
One very important provision of the tax relief package we have
proposed is the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. There is
strong bipartisan agreement that this penalty is not only unfair but
that it is counterproductive in a way that discourages couples from
marrying.
When I introduced the Taxpayer Refund Act 2 days ago, I introduced
Robert and Dianne, a hypothetical couple who had fallen in love and
wanted to marry. I explained how, as individuals, they would not be
considered wealthy, how Robert worked as a foreman in an auto plant and
Dianne worked as a nurse. I then explained how, as a married couple
with a combined income, they would be considered well off and how they
would end up paying the Government $1,500 more in taxes than they would
if they remained single.
The Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 does away with the marriage tax
penalty. It completely eliminates the penalty for Robert and Dianne and
for any other couples who choose to marry. What I like about the
amendment introduced by our distinguished colleague from Texas, Senator
Hutchison, is that under her plan the tax relief is expedited. This is
done at a price. The change does require the delay of other provisions
that provide relief for the taxpayer. I regret that. But we do think it
is desirable to provide marriage relief as early as possible.
Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator will yield just a few minutes?
Mr. ROTH. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I again compliment my good friend, the
Senator from Texas, as well as the chairman of the committee. The
Senator from Texas offered this amendment last night, and at that time
I explained we thought this was a very good amendment because it moves
in the direction of the Democratic substitute, raising the standard
deduction, in her case for married couples, to eliminate the marriage
tax penalty. We would have gone further, but we compliment the Senator
in going in this direction.
Last night, too, there was a slight question how this was going to be
paid for. We have worked it out overnight. As I understand it--the
Senator may correct me if I am wrong--the AMT delayed relief provisions
are no longer in place, but rather there will be a delay in the
expansion of the 15-percent bracket in order to pay for this.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. The Senator is correct. There are delays. Nothing is
eliminated, but there are delays in several provisions because we are
trying to say this is our first priority.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think that is a good offset. It adds a
little more progressivity, frankly, to the bill, than otherwise would
be there.
I compliment the Senator on her amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I am
delighted to join her in this amendment that it appears will garner
overwhelming support. I hope that sends a strong signal across this
country that today is a day to celebrate. We should be celebrating the
institution of marriage and support that institution rather than tax
it.
For many years now we have taxed it. Clearly, if there is a policy in
Government that stands it is if you want less of something, tax it; if
you want more of something, subsidize it. We have been taxing marriage,
and marriage has fallen off in this country 43 percent over the last 30
years. That is a terrible situation for an institution that is so
central.
I note to my colleagues, we all frequently talk about family values.
Thomas, from Hilliard, OH, writes in about this point on the marriage
penalty and the notion of family values:
No person who legitimately supports family values could be
against this bill. The marriage penalty is but another
example of how in the past 40 years the federal government
has enacted policies that have broken down the fundamental
institutions that were the strength of this country from the
start.
I could not have put it better. I am delighted it appears that this
amendment is going to be agreed to. I hope we can get it to the
President's desk and that the President will be supportive of
eliminating the marriage penalty tax. I hope as well we could go
further in the future and enact income splitting, that we could provide
for a couple to split their income. This would be even more supportive
of this fundamental institution in our culture, in our Nation, of
marriage. I hope we can take that step on into the future.
I am delighted to have the chairman's support in this. I urge all my
colleagues in the name of family values, vote for this amendment.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are remaining 3 minutes 20 seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will finish on my statement.
Something very important is happening. What is important is, we are
apparently going to pass overwhelmingly the only amendment that will
have passed on this bill. On this very important tax cut measure, we
are going to add certainly the first amendment, and maybe the only one,
that says the marriage tax penalty is not going to be allowed to stand
in the United States of America. That is what we are doing today. The
bill provides for marriage tax penalty relief in 2005. I applaud the
committee for doing that. But I thought we should address it earlier.
That is why Senator Ashcroft, Senator Brownback, Senator Domenici,
Senator Roth, and Senator Baucus have come together and said that is
right. The people of this country who want to get married should not
have to pay $1,000 in taxes just because they got married. We are going
to end it today because we are sending a signal that is joined by the
House that this is our first priority.
So a high school football coach and a schoolteacher can get married
and not move into a bracket that is almost double just because they got
married. It hits our middle-income taxpayers the most. They are the
ones who are trying to save for a new house or a new car or to do
something special for their new baby. We are going to send a signal out
of the Senate, along with the House, to the President, saying: Mr.
President, we are going to have $1 trillion in income tax surplus. Are
you serious in saying you would veto this bill that gives marriage tax
penalty relief to our country, that gives pension relief to the women
who go in and out of the workforce who are unable to have the same
pension capabilities as those who never leave the workforce?
Is the President serious about vetoing a bill that provides for
Social Security, that provides for Medicare and education, and, yes,
the marriage tax penalty relief?
Mr. President, we are making a statement with this amendment. I am
proud the Senate is going to take up and I believe overwhelmingly pass
a
[[Page
S9889]]
priority of eliminating the marriage tax penalty in this country once
and for all. I urge my colleagues to give a unanimous vote for the
married people who have been living with a penalty that is not
warranted.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we yield back the remainder of the time.
Vote on Amendment No. 1462
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is now
on the motion to waive the Budget Act on the Bingaman amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--52
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 48, the nays are 52.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would object to any unanimous consent
regarding comments on my outfit this morning.
I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in the series be
limited to 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I urge my colleagues, please stay in the Chamber. We still
do have a number of amendments we will need to go through. Senator
Daschle and I have agreed that we want to limit those to 10 minutes
each, with 2 minutes between the 10 minutes for 1 minute of explanation
on each side. If we do that, I believe we can still finish this bill at
a reasonable hour.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Brig Pari and
Ed McClellan of the Finance Committee staff be granted floor privileges
for the duration of the consideration of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote On Amendment No. 1472, As Further Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on the amendment of the
Senator from Texas. Does the Senator request the yeas and nays?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be
added as an original cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1472, as further
modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]
YEAS--98
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--2
Hollings
Voinovich
The amendment (No. 1472), as further modified, was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Privilege Of The Floor
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two
staffers, Kathleen Strottman and Ben Cannon, have floor privileges.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of
my staff, Chris Stanek, have access to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Motion To Recommit
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk and ask that it
be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] moves to
recommit
S. 1429, the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999, to the
Committee on Finance, with instructions to report back to the
Senate within 3 days, with an amendment to reserve $20
billion over ten years for relief from the unintended
consequences of the Balanced Budget Act on teaching
hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health care
providers, rural and other community hospitals, and other
health care providers, by reducing or deferring certain new
tax breaks in the bill.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I understand I have 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me share with my colleagues what this
is. Under the Balanced Budget Act, we set out to save some $103 billion
in Medicare expenditures with respect to hospitals, home care, et
cetera. The problem is the unintended consequences of the way that has
happened, coupled with the managed care process, in fact, about $205
billion in Medicare payments has been reduced. The result is that, in
hospitals, home care facilities, and nursing homes all across the
country, all of our States are significantly affected in the quality of
care that is being delivered.
Special care units in hospitals are closing. Home care facilities are
refusing patients. There has been a significant reduction in the
quality of care across the country. Our teaching hospitals are
threatened. What we are saying is that we need to reserve some $20
billion in order to be able to adequately make up for the unintended
[[Page
S9890]]
consequences of the Balanced Budget Act.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, although the Kerry amendment is well-
intended, it is not germane to this reconciliation bill. The Finance
Committee is paying close attention to the concerns of health care
providers and beneficiaries. Over ten Medicare hearings have been held
this year, three focusing specifically on BBA 1997 policies.
The Finance Committee is also developing a Medicare package that will
address the many concerns in the Balanced Budget Act. The tax package
in no way interferes with this process.
Finally, I might add that even the President's Medicare proposal sets
aside a maximum of only $7.5 billion over 10 years to address BBA
fixes, $12.5 billion less than this amendment.
The amendment is not germane to this reconciliation legislation, and
I raise a point of order under section 305 (b)(2) of the Budget Act.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act,
I move to waive that section in that act for consideration of this
motion.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 helped bring us to this
era of budget surpluses and economic prosperity. But too much of the
actual savings used to balance the budget have come from Medicare.
At the time the BBA was enacted, those savings were expected to total
$116 billion over five years. Now, they are estimated by CBO to be
nearly twice as great--nearly $200 billion over five years. Such deep
cuts in Medicare are clearly unfair and unacceptable.
Not surprisingly, all of us are now hearing from bedrock health care
institutions across the country that are being devastated by these
excessive cuts. Teaching hospitals--community hositals--community
health centers and many others. We are hearing from those who care for
the elderly and disabled when they leave the hospital--nursing homes--
home health agencies--rehabilitation facilities. We are hearing from
virtually every one who cares for the 40 million senior citizens and
disabled citizens on Medicare. They are telling us in no uncertain
terms that Congress went too far.
This motion is the first step toward reducing the steepest cuts. It
would provide $20 billion over the next ten years to slow or eliminate
the harshest impact of the Balanced Budget Act. It would ensure that
the nation's hospitals and other health care facilities will be able to
care for senior citizens and the disabled in the years ahead.
With the retirement of the baby boom generation, the last thing we
should be doing is jeopardizing the viability of the many health care
facilities that depend on Medicare for their survival. These
institutions are being hard hit in cities and towns across the nation.
Often, the hospitals and other institutions that care for Medicare
patients also care for other patients as well. Health care in the
entire community is being threatened.
Teaching hospitals are on the receiving end of a triple-whammy. The
slash in Medicare reductions is leading to less patient care, less
doctor training, and less medical research at the nation's top
hospitals. In my own state of Massachusetts, for the first time in
history, some of the finest and most renowned teaching hospitals in the
country are now operating at a deficit. This situation is
unsustainable--and it is happening all over our country. We will all
suffer if these great institutions are forced out of business or into
the arms of for-profit corporations.
Community hospitals are suffering, too. Throughout my State of
Massachusetts, we are seeing red ink and cutbacks in essential
services. This, too, is happening all over the country.
In Massachusetts alone, house health agencies are losing $160 million
a year. Twenty agencies have closed their doors since the Balanced
Budget Act went into effect. Many others are seeing fewer patients, and
seeing their remaining patients less often. The home-bound elderly are
especially vulnerable, and are suffering even more. In just the last
two weeks, two Massachusetts nursing homes have declared bankruptcy.
This proposal is an important step to restore the viability of these
indispensable institutions in our health care system, and I urge the
Senate to approve it. We must undo the damage before it is too late.
The last thing we need to see on the doors of the nation's teaching
hospitals, community hospitals, home health agencies, and nursing
homes, is a sign that says, ``Closed because of the ill-considered
activities of the United States Congress.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 234 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--50
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kerrey
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 50, the nays are 50.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the motion falls.
Without objection, the motion to table is agreed to.
The Senator from Tennessee.
change of vote
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 234, I voted
``no.'' It was my intention to vote ``aye.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous
consent that I may be permitted to change my vote. It will in no way
change the outcome of the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Amendment No. 1467
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1467.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist) proposes an
amendment numbered 1467.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in a previous edition of the Record.)
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate
amendment that goes right at the heart of what we should be doing about
Medicare. It says Congress should be acting to modernize Medicare, to
ensure its solvency, and to include prescription drugs.
The congressional budget plan has $505 billion over the next 10 years
in unallocated budget surpluses that could be used for long-term
Medicare reform. In addition, the congressional budget resolution for
the year 2000 has specifically set aside $90 billion for this purpose.
Thus, my sense-of-the-Senate amendment says that the unallocated on-
budget surpluses provide adequate resources and that: No. 1, the
congressional budget resolution provides a sound framework for the
modernization of Medicare; No. 2, improving the solvency of Medicare;
and No. 3, improving coverage of prescription drugs.
Congress should act to accomplish these goals for the Medicare
program.
[[Page
S9891]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, with great respect, I must inform this
body that this amendment is pure fiction. It is pure fiction because
the House and the Senate this year have been using Congressional Budget
Office baseline numbers to predict what the surplus is or is not and
what is left for spending. Under that formula, there is virtually no
money in this tax bill left for discretionary spending.
A few days ago, a new chart suddenly popped up. The new chart comes
up with this money. How does it come up with this money? It basically
assumes that the Congress, over the next 10 years, is going to not only
cut discretionary spending under the caps as planned but then not raise
discretionary spending above inflation over the next 8 years.
I say that is a fiction--it is just not going to happen, so the money
is not there--developed by this recent new chart.
If it is an accurate assumption that there is no spending, then it
cuts discretionary spending by 50 percent, one or the other. It is a
fiction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on amendment No. 1467.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending
amendment violates 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
Mr. FRIST. Pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act, I move to waive
the Budget Act for the consideration of my amendment No. 1467, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 235 Leg.]
YEAS--54
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). On this vote the yeas are 54, the
nays are 46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of
order is sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Frist Medicare Amendment
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I voted against the Medicare Sense of
the Senate amendment numbered 1467, offered by Senator Frist. For the
benefit of my constituents in West Virginia, I offer a brief
explanation for why I voted the way I did.
I opposed Senator Frist's amendment because, in my judgment, it is
based on a fiction. As we all know, the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) has projected a $996 billion non-Social Security surplus over the
next ten years. The Frist amendment said that, even allowing for the
$792 billion tax cut, there was still enough money left over to provide
for the long-term solvency of the Medicare system. One need not be an
economist, or even an expert in budget policy, to understand why that
was just plain wrong.
The Republican tax cut plan will cost $971 billion over the next ten
years--$792 billion for the actual tax cut, plus $179 billion in
additional interest payments on the debt. That leaves $25 billion of
the non-Social Security surplus. From that amount, the Republicans have
said we can provide for emergency expenditures for natural disasters
and international conflicts, which averages $80 billion over ten years;
fund current operations of government; and reserve enough money for
Medicare. And, as I say, they would do all that without using the
Social Security surplus. As anyone can plainly see, that is just not
possible. In all good conscience, I could not vote for the Frist
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Motion To Recommit
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up a motion we have at the desk
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] moves to
recommit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with
instructions to report back to the Senate within 3 days,
with an amendment to correct the fact that the bill uses
Social Security surpluses for tax breaks by causing on-
budget deficits, taking into account both revenue losses
and additional interest costs caused by the higher levels
of debt that would result from the bill's enactment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the motion is very simple. It directs
the Finance Committee to correct the bill so that it does not raid
Social Security surpluses in any year to pay for tax cuts. In its
current form, this bill would use Social Security surpluses in each of
the second 5 years after enactment.
Altogether, $75 billion of Social Security money will be used to pay
for the broad-based tax rebates that are largely for special interests
and for the very wealthy. That is the intent, and it is inconsistent
with the Social Security lockbox that the Republicans claim to support.
If my colleagues are serious about stopping Congress from raiding
these surpluses, they will support my motion. The Finance Committee can
correct the problem very quickly, and then we can proceed to consider
the bill within only a few days.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
TABLE 3.--CBO ESTIMATE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET RESOLUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BASELINE SURPLUS OR DEFICIT (-)
On-budget.................................................. -4 14 38 82 75 85 92 129 146 157 178 996
Off-budget................................................. 125 147 155 164 172 181 195 205 217 228 235 1,901
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 120 161 193 246 247 266 286 334 364 385 413 2,986
====================================================================================================================================
EFFECTS OF THE BUDGET RESOLUTION'S POLICIES
Revenues................................................... 0 0 -8 -54 -32 -49 -63 -109 -136 -151 -177 -778
====================================================================================================================================
Outlays:
Discretionry \1\......................................... 0 0 0 0 10 6 -6 -24 -42 -55 -70 -180
[[Page
S9892]]
Mandatory................................................ 0 (\2\) 1 1 1 1 1 (\2\) (\2\) -1 -1 4
*COM008**COM008*......................................... 0 (\2\) (\2\) 2 4 7 10 15 20 26 32 117
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal \3\........................................... 0 (\2\) 1 3 16 14 5 -9 -22 -29 -38 -59
Total \4\.............................................. 0 (\2\) -9 -57 -48 -63 -68 -100 -114 -121 -139 -719
====================================================================================================================================
SURPLUS OR DEFICIT (-) UNDER THE BUDGET RESOLUTION'S
POLICIES AS ESTIMATED BY CBO
On-budget.................................................. -4 14 29 26 27 21 24 29 32 36 39 277
Off-budget................................................. 125 147 155 164 172 181 195 205 217 228 234 1,901
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 120 161 184 190 199 203 219 234 250 263 275 2,178
Memorandum:
Debt Held by the Public:
Baseline............................................... 3,168 3,473 3,297 3,066 2,835 2,584 2,312 1,992 1,640 1,267 865 NA
Budget resolution as estimated by CBO.................. 3,618 3,473 3,305 3,132 2,949 2,761 2,557 2,336 2,099 1,847 1,584 NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The effect of the 1999 supplemental appropriations bill (P.L. 106-31), which was enacted after the resolution was passed, has been added to the resolution totals. Also, the projections
include spending from contingent emergencies.
\2\ Less than $500 million.
\3\ Effect on outlays.
\4\ Effect on the surplus.
Note: NA = not applicable.
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this table clearly shows there is no
Social Security money in this tax cut.
Secondly, maybe the Senator is confused. CBO says the President still
does not lock up all the Social Security money. It is $30 billion
short.
Last, I suggest if they are really concerned about the Social
Security trust fund size, why are they filibustering against a lockbox
that would encapsulate it and make sure it is there?
In summary, the Senator from New Jersey is using the wrong chart. It
does not apply to the real situation. We are using no Social Security
money in terms of our tax cut.
I move to table the Lautenberg motion to recommit and ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the motion to recommit. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 236 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--45
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Amendment No. 1469, As Modified
(Purpose: To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes and the tax on
generation-skipping transfers, to repeal a step up basis at death, and
for other purposes)
Mr. KYL. I call up amendment No. 1469, and ask unanimous consent that
it be modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment
numbered 1469, as modified.
Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Beginning on page 226, line 1, strike through page 237,
line 5, and insert:
TITLE VII--ESTATE AND GIFT TAX RELIEF PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Repeal of Estate, Gift, and Generation-Skipping Taxes;
Repeal of Step Up in Basis At Death
SEC. 701. REPEAL OF ESTATE, GIFT, AND GENERATION-SKIPPING
TAXES.
(a) In General.--Subtitle B is hereby repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a)
shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts and
generation-skipping transfers made, after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 702. TERMINATION OF STEP UP IN BASIS AT DEATH.
(a) Termination of Application of Section 1014.--Section
1014 (relating to basis of property acquired from a decedent)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
TAXPAYER REFUND ACT OF 1999
(Senate - July 30, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages S9885-
S9937]
TAXPAYER REFUND ACT OF 1999
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of
S. 1429, which the clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:
A bill (
S. 1429) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
section 104 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2000.
Pending:
Bingaman amendment No. 1462, to express the sense of the
Senate regarding investment in education.
Hutchison modified amendment No. 1472, to provide for the
relief of the marriage tax penalty beginning in the year
2001.
Roth (for Grassley) amendment No. 1388, making technical
corrections to the Saver Act.
Roth (for Abraham) amendment No. 1411, to provide that no
Federal income tax shall be imposed on amounts received, and
lands recovered, by Holocaust victims for their heirs.
Roth (for Sessions) amendment No. 1412, to provide for the
Collegiate Learning and Students Savings (CLASS) Act title.
Roth (for Collins/Coverdell) modified amendment No. 1446,
to eliminate the 2-percent floor on miscellaneous itemized
deductions for qualified professional development and
incidental expenses of elementary and secondary school
teachers.
Roth (for Abraham) amendment No. 1455, to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the deduction for
computer donations to schools and to allow a tax credit for
donated computers.
amendment no. 1462
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 15
minutes equally divided with respect to the Bingaman amendment No.
1462.
Who yields time?
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time is allotted to me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minute
s 30 seconds.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield myself 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment I presented yesterday and
that we are going to vote on first this morning is a simple statement
that we should reduce the size of the tax cut that is proposed by $132
billion so that we will have funds available to maintain the current
level of effort in support of education. It, I grant you, is a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution. It does not ensure that the money is spent
there, but to my mind it at least reserves those funds so we can
maintain the current level of effort in support of education. In other
words, I believe we should be on record for funding education at least
at current levels before we settle on the size of the tax cut that we
can afford.
Some might ask why am I singling out education. Well,
S. 1429 is more
[[Page
S9886]]
than just a tax bill; it is a reconciliation bill, which means, at
least in rough form, it purports to set national priorities for the
next 10 years. I believe that a very top priority should be providing
quality education to the young people of this Nation. Our future
depends more on that investment than it does on virtually any other
investment we might make.
So if education is a priority, what is the relationship of this tax
cut bill to education? Now, as I understand the estimates for the next
10 years, the tax cut bill is so large that it will require us to make
significant cuts in discretionary spending, including education, in
this coming decade, and that is the concern I have and that is what has
prompted this amendment.
Yesterday, as I was describing the amendment, I was informed that my
concern is unfounded; that in fact even after the tax cut--and I know
people do not like to have it referred to as a massive tax cut; I
notice that is what the Wall Street Journal called it this morning in
their headline--there will be plenty of discretionary funds for
education. That was the information I was given.
So let me look at the figures I have and see where I am confused on
this and where I have misunderstood the situation.
First of all, we all expect a surplus, and that is why we are having
this debate and talking about cutting taxes in the first place. So we
all agree to that. We also all agree that the portion of that surplus
attributable to Social Security should be left for Social Security. And
that is about $1.9 trillion. There is no dispute about that that I am
aware of, at least in this debate.
So after we take that out, what is left? At the beginning of the
debate, the Congressional Budget Office came out with the figure in the
range of $1 trillion, the non-Social Security-related surplus. So that
is represented here. This chart shows CBO, Congressional Budget Office.
This column represents the non-Social Security surplus as it was
understood by me when we started the debate.
Now I am informed that we have a new estimate and that the surplus is
not going to be $2.8 trillion over the next 10 years; instead, it is
going to be over $3.3 trillion. So there is going to be substantially
more money. The question is, Where did we find this additional $400 to
$500 billion?
Mr. President, let me yield myself 1 more minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. It was arrived at by assuming that less money is going
to be spent on discretionary spending during the 10 years. The
Congressional Budget Office assumed that $595 billion would be cut in
discretionary spending. The new claim is that there is going to be $1
trillion cut, and that by cutting discretionary spending by $1 trillion
instead of by $595 billion, we are going to have extra money that we
can turn around and spend on discretionary accounts.
Mr. President, that doesn't add up in my mind. I believe
discretionary accounts are important. I believe education has to be at
the top of that list. I do not see where we can expect to find the
money to maintain current levels of effort on education if we vote for
this very large tax cut. That is why the size of the tax cut should be
reduced so that education programs will not have to be cut.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 25 seconds.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the balance of my time to the Senator from
Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman. This is a very
important amendment that he has offered. Certainly, as we are talking
about what the future of our country is going to be, we should be
looking at what we are doing to invest in our young children today so
they can be economically viable when they graduate from high school and
college 15, 20 years from now, making sure that we have the money there
for the Head Start Program, Pell grants, early childhood education.
These are important investments in our children, and if we follow
through on a massive tax cut at this time, as the Senator from New
Mexico has said, in the future we will not have the money to make sure
that our kids get the kind of education they need to be viable members
of our community. This is a very important amendment.
As we come to the end of this debate about what we are going to do to
invest in our future, let's remember that if we put in place a tax cut
such as this, we will harm our young children, we will harm Social
Security and Medicare and critical programs for women in this country
to make sure they don't live in poverty. We will not be able to pay off
our debt, a very important issue that is facing us, which we have not
left ourselves room for with a massive tax cut of this size.
Most critically, we will not be able to do what we have a
responsibility to do, not only as Senators but as parents and as adults
in this country, to make sure that those who follow us have the skills
they need to make sure this country continues to run well in the
future. Investment in Pell grants and in early childhood education, and
investment in education, class size reduction, and training of our
teachers will make a difference for the future. We have a
responsibility to do that.
I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his work on education, and I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as I said yesterday, I don't normally
take to the Senate floor and speak in opposition to an amendment of my
colleague from New Mexico. But I did yesterday, and I must this morning
because if this amendment is reported in New Mexico, and if it says to
constituents of our State that the budget resolution we adopted, and
what will be left over after the tax cut would decimate education, then
it would appear to me that I must answer because that isn't true.
First of all, the Senator from New Mexico, my colleague, is at least
not as sensational in his approach as the President was yesterday. The
President even knows right down to the nickel what is not going to be
spent in education. That is impossible. He says that 544,000 kids
aren't going to be able to learn to read. That is ludicrous. If that is
the kind of talk he needs to defeat a tax bill, then good luck to him.
It is just absolutely untrue.
Let's get the facts as I remember and understand them. We produced a
budget resolution. It is nothing new with reference to the taxes; $792
billion spread out over 10 years was the tax cut in that bill. We also
allocated the remaining money for the next decade and, incidentally, in
doing that, even though there was a reduction in discretionary
spending, the highest priority domestic program was education, for all
the reasons stated on the floor by Senator Murray and Senator Bingaman.
It is terribly important that we use our education dollars right and
better but that there be more of them. We put $37 billion in additional
money during the first 5 years of that budget for education.
Now, what happened after that? After that, some 3 months later, the
Congressional Budget Office did a midsession review and told us there
was more money than that. As a matter of fact, there was $170 billion
more in the surplus account. We didn't add some of that to the tax cut.
It is sitting there. What I did, so that everyone would understand, I
said let's look at this surplus in the chart I used yesterday, and
let's assume that we freeze discretionary spending and ask CBO how much
money would then be available to put back into discretionary accounts
during the decade.
They told us: We don't know whether you will use it in discretionary
accounts. We can't say that.
But there is $505 billion that could be added into priority spending.
I believe that means all of the discretionary spending can go up
significantly and you can establish education as a high-priority item
and fund it at levels higher than we have now, which I think
Republicans will do if we have reform in the educational allowances of
the Federal Government, so that there is accountability and flexibility
in the programs that we send there.
I believe what my colleague from New Mexico is expressing on the
floor
[[Page
S9887]]
is a sincere desire that we be sure that in the discretionary accounts
we fund education adequately. If that is what he was saying, I join
with him in saying that is true. But when he says you need to take $122
billion--or whatever the number is--out of the tax cut in order to do
that, I disagree. I don't think you have to do that.
Plain and simple, I think there is plenty of discretionary money
available. I add, if you use the President's numbers on Medicare--and
he said you only needed $46 billion to fix prescription drugs--you have
$505 billion, less the $46 billion, and all the rest can go to
discretionary spending in the next decade. I am not trying to mislead
anybody. In order to understand it, I said start with the premise that
we freeze all these accounts and put in what is left. If you look at
the budget resolution, we put $181 billion into those accounts, with
education being the highest priority. It just happens there is more
than that $181 billion because the midsession review added many
billions of dollars in accumulated surplus.
I am fully aware that Senator Bingaman, my colleague, has regularly
and consistently as a member of the Committee on Education, and on the
floor, been a promoter and a staunch supporter of education. I agree
with him, but I believe he is wrong in thinking that we have to reduce
the tax cut in order to be sure we do that. I also remind everybody
that there are some very significant education programs in this tax
bill. It makes it easier to continue your education because it has
allowances, credits, and deductions in the adult education area. It
makes it easier to pay off student loans. It makes college more
affordable, and it provides tax exempt financing for school
construction. All of that is in the Roth bill.
Whatever time I had remaining, I yield back.
I make a point of order that the Bingaman amendment No. 1462 is
extraneous to the bill before us. Therefore, I raise a point of order
under section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of
that act for the consideration of the pending amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 1472, As Further Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 15
minutes equally divided for concluding remarks with respect to the
Hutchison of Texas amendment, No. 1472.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, under the previous unanimous consent
agreement, I send a modification of the amendment to the desk to
amendment No. 1472.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 1472), as further modified, is as follows:
On page 10, line 6, strike ``2004'' and insert ``2005''.
On page 10, strike the matter between lines 19 and 20, and
insert:
Applicable
``Calendar year: dollar amount:
2006 or 2007..............................................$4,000 ....
2008 and thereafter......................................$5,000. ....
On page 11, strike the matter before line 1, and insert:
Applicable
``Calendar year: dollar amount:
2006 or 2007..............................................$2,000 ....
2008 and thereafter......................................$2,500. ....
On page 11, line 3, strike ``2007'' and insert ``2008''.
On page 11, line 11, strike ``2006'' and insert ``2007''.
On page 32, between lines 14 and 15, insert:
SEC. ____. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD
DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) (relating
to standard deduction) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and
inserting ``twice the dollar amount in effect under
subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'',
(2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B),
(3) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in
subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.'', and
(4) by striking subparagraph (D).
(b) Phase-in.--Subsection (c) of section 63 is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Phase-in of increase in basic standard deduction.--In
the case of taxable years beginning before January 1, 2008--
``(A) paragraph (2)(A) shall be applied by substituting for
`twice'--
``(i) `1.671 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2001,
``(ii) `1.70 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2002,
``(iii) `1.727 times' in the case of taxable years
beginning during 2003,
``(iv) `1.837 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2004,
``(v) `1.951 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2005,
``(vi) `1.953 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2006, and
``(vii) `1.973 times' in the case of taxable years
beginning during 2007, and
``(B) the basic standard deduction for a married individual
filing a separate return shall be one-half of the amount
applicable under paragraph (2)(A).
If any amount determined under subparagraph (A) is not a
multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the next
lowest multiple of $50.''.
(c) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(6) is amended by
striking ``(other than with'' and all that follows through
``shall be applied'' and inserting ``(other than with respect
to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be applied''.
(2) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) is amended by adding at
the end the following flush sentence:
``The preceding sentence shall not apply to the amount
referred to in paragraph (2)(A).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
On page 38, line 18, strike ``2000'' and insert ``2002''.
On page 236, strike line 12 through the matter following
line 21, and insert:
(a) In General.--Section 2503(b) (relating to exclusions
from gifts) is amended--
(1) by striking the following:
``(b) Exclusions From Gifts.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of gifts'',
(2) by inserting the following:
``(b) Exclusions From Gifts.--In the case of gifts'',
(3) by striking paragraph (2), and
(4) by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$20,000''.
On page 237, line 3, strike ``2000'' and insert ``2004''.
On page 262, strike line
s 15 through 17, and insert:
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2004, and before January 1, 2007.
On page 270, line 18, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2004''.
On page 273, line 21, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2004''.
On page 275, line 12, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2004''.
On page 277, line 13, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2005''.
On page 278, line 13, strike ``2002'' and insert ``2004''.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I now yield 2 minutes to Senator
Ashcroft of Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from
Texas for her outstanding work correcting a pernicious discrimination
against the most valuable institution in our society, the family. I
thank the chairman for his sensitivity to this important issue, for
placing in this bill procedures to remedy the marriage penalty.
The marriage penalty simply is an anomaly. It is a strangeness in the
tax structure that has evolved, that penalizes people for being
married. It puts them into higher tax brackets when they get married
than when they were single. When people get married, they start paying
a tax penalty. That is something we should stop.
The Senator from Texas and the chairman of this committee have agreed
that we should stop it. And we should, as a matter of fact, according
to the amendment of the Senator from Texas, of which I am an original
cosponsor along with Senator Brownback, accelerate the time at which we
begin to stop this very serious fault with the tax system.
America should not penalize the family. It should not make it harder
for people to have families. It should not make it financially more
difficult for two people to be married and live together than unmarried
and live together. That is a simple fact. It is because the family is
the best department of social services, the best department of
education; it is the best place in which individuals are enriched to
learn individual responsibility and the values and character our
culture needs to survive.
[[Page
S9888]]
I am very pleased to be a part of this tax measure which will say
about America's families that we cherish them rather than punish them
and it is time for all of us to join together and eliminate the
marriage tax penalty.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Who yields time? The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is the 4
minutes from my 7\1/2\ minutes?
Mr. ROTH. I am yielding this from my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. ROTH. Actually, Mr. President, I want to add my support for the
amendment put forward by Senator Hutchison. It builds on the basic
objectives of the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999, particularly objectives
of helping families bring greater equity to the Tax Code.
One very important provision of the tax relief package we have
proposed is the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. There is
strong bipartisan agreement that this penalty is not only unfair but
that it is counterproductive in a way that discourages couples from
marrying.
When I introduced the Taxpayer Refund Act 2 days ago, I introduced
Robert and Dianne, a hypothetical couple who had fallen in love and
wanted to marry. I explained how, as individuals, they would not be
considered wealthy, how Robert worked as a foreman in an auto plant and
Dianne worked as a nurse. I then explained how, as a married couple
with a combined income, they would be considered well off and how they
would end up paying the Government $1,500 more in taxes than they would
if they remained single.
The Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 does away with the marriage tax
penalty. It completely eliminates the penalty for Robert and Dianne and
for any other couples who choose to marry. What I like about the
amendment introduced by our distinguished colleague from Texas, Senator
Hutchison, is that under her plan the tax relief is expedited. This is
done at a price. The change does require the delay of other provisions
that provide relief for the taxpayer. I regret that. But we do think it
is desirable to provide marriage relief as early as possible.
Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator will yield just a few minutes?
Mr. ROTH. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I again compliment my good friend, the
Senator from Texas, as well as the chairman of the committee. The
Senator from Texas offered this amendment last night, and at that time
I explained we thought this was a very good amendment because it moves
in the direction of the Democratic substitute, raising the standard
deduction, in her case for married couples, to eliminate the marriage
tax penalty. We would have gone further, but we compliment the Senator
in going in this direction.
Last night, too, there was a slight question how this was going to be
paid for. We have worked it out overnight. As I understand it--the
Senator may correct me if I am wrong--the AMT delayed relief provisions
are no longer in place, but rather there will be a delay in the
expansion of the 15-percent bracket in order to pay for this.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. The Senator is correct. There are delays. Nothing is
eliminated, but there are delays in several provisions because we are
trying to say this is our first priority.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think that is a good offset. It adds a
little more progressivity, frankly, to the bill, than otherwise would
be there.
I compliment the Senator on her amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I am
delighted to join her in this amendment that it appears will garner
overwhelming support. I hope that sends a strong signal across this
country that today is a day to celebrate. We should be celebrating the
institution of marriage and support that institution rather than tax
it.
For many years now we have taxed it. Clearly, if there is a policy in
Government that stands it is if you want less of something, tax it; if
you want more of something, subsidize it. We have been taxing marriage,
and marriage has fallen off in this country 43 percent over the last 30
years. That is a terrible situation for an institution that is so
central.
I note to my colleagues, we all frequently talk about family values.
Thomas, from Hilliard, OH, writes in about this point on the marriage
penalty and the notion of family values:
No person who legitimately supports family values could be
against this bill. The marriage penalty is but another
example of how in the past 40 years the federal government
has enacted policies that have broken down the fundamental
institutions that were the strength of this country from the
start.
I could not have put it better. I am delighted it appears that this
amendment is going to be agreed to. I hope we can get it to the
President's desk and that the President will be supportive of
eliminating the marriage penalty tax. I hope as well we could go
further in the future and enact income splitting, that we could provide
for a couple to split their income. This would be even more supportive
of this fundamental institution in our culture, in our Nation, of
marriage. I hope we can take that step on into the future.
I am delighted to have the chairman's support in this. I urge all my
colleagues in the name of family values, vote for this amendment.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are remaining 3 minutes 20 seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will finish on my statement.
Something very important is happening. What is important is, we are
apparently going to pass overwhelmingly the only amendment that will
have passed on this bill. On this very important tax cut measure, we
are going to add certainly the first amendment, and maybe the only one,
that says the marriage tax penalty is not going to be allowed to stand
in the United States of America. That is what we are doing today. The
bill provides for marriage tax penalty relief in 2005. I applaud the
committee for doing that. But I thought we should address it earlier.
That is why Senator Ashcroft, Senator Brownback, Senator Domenici,
Senator Roth, and Senator Baucus have come together and said that is
right. The people of this country who want to get married should not
have to pay $1,000 in taxes just because they got married. We are going
to end it today because we are sending a signal that is joined by the
House that this is our first priority.
So a high school football coach and a schoolteacher can get married
and not move into a bracket that is almost double just because they got
married. It hits our middle-income taxpayers the most. They are the
ones who are trying to save for a new house or a new car or to do
something special for their new baby. We are going to send a signal out
of the Senate, along with the House, to the President, saying: Mr.
President, we are going to have $1 trillion in income tax surplus. Are
you serious in saying you would veto this bill that gives marriage tax
penalty relief to our country, that gives pension relief to the women
who go in and out of the workforce who are unable to have the same
pension capabilities as those who never leave the workforce?
Is the President serious about vetoing a bill that provides for
Social Security, that provides for Medicare and education, and, yes,
the marriage tax penalty relief?
Mr. President, we are making a statement with this amendment. I am
proud the Senate is going to take up and I believe overwhelmingly pass
a
[[Page
S9889]]
priority of eliminating the marriage tax penalty in this country once
and for all. I urge my colleagues to give a unanimous vote for the
married people who have been living with a penalty that is not
warranted.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we yield back the remainder of the time.
Vote on Amendment No. 1462
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is now
on the motion to waive the Budget Act on the Bingaman amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--52
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 48, the nays are 52.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would object to any unanimous consent
regarding comments on my outfit this morning.
I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in the series be
limited to 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I urge my colleagues, please stay in the Chamber. We still
do have a number of amendments we will need to go through. Senator
Daschle and I have agreed that we want to limit those to 10 minutes
each, with 2 minutes between the 10 minutes for 1 minute of explanation
on each side. If we do that, I believe we can still finish this bill at
a reasonable hour.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Brig Pari and
Ed McClellan of the Finance Committee staff be granted floor privileges
for the duration of the consideration of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote On Amendment No. 1472, As Further Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on the amendment of the
Senator from Texas. Does the Senator request the yeas and nays?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be
added as an original cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1472, as further
modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]
YEAS--98
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--2
Hollings
Voinovich
The amendment (No. 1472), as further modified, was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Privilege Of The Floor
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two
staffers, Kathleen Strottman and Ben Cannon, have floor privileges.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of
my staff, Chris Stanek, have access to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Motion To Recommit
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk and ask that it
be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] moves to
recommit
S. 1429, the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999, to the
Committee on Finance, with instructions to report back to the
Senate within 3 days, with an amendment to reserve $20
billion over ten years for relief from the unintended
consequences of the Balanced Budget Act on teaching
hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health care
providers, rural and other community hospitals, and other
health care providers, by reducing or deferring certain new
tax breaks in the bill.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I understand I have 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me share with my colleagues what this
is. Under the Balanced Budget Act, we set out to save some $103 billion
in Medicare expenditures with respect to hospitals, home care, et
cetera. The problem is the unintended consequences of the way that has
happened, coupled with the managed care process, in fact, about $205
billion in Medicare payments has been reduced. The result is that, in
hospitals, home care facilities, and nursing homes all across the
country, all of our States are significantly affected in the quality of
care that is being delivered.
Special care units in hospitals are closing. Home care facilities are
refusing patients. There has been a significant reduction in the
quality of care across the country. Our teaching hospitals are
threatened. What we are saying is that we need to reserve some $20
billion in order to be able to adequately make up for the unintended
[[Page
S9890]]
consequences of the Balanced Budget Act.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, although the Kerry amendment is well-
intended, it is not germane to this reconciliation bill. The Finance
Committee is paying close attention to the concerns of health care
providers and beneficiaries. Over ten Medicare hearings have been held
this year, three focusing specifically on BBA 1997 policies.
The Finance Committee is also developing a Medicare package that will
address the many concerns in the Balanced Budget Act. The tax package
in no way interferes with this process.
Finally, I might add that even the President's Medicare proposal sets
aside a maximum of only $7.5 billion over 10 years to address BBA
fixes, $12.5 billion less than this amendment.
The amendment is not germane to this reconciliation legislation, and
I raise a point of order under section 305 (b)(2) of the Budget Act.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act,
I move to waive that section in that act for consideration of this
motion.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 helped bring us to this
era of budget surpluses and economic prosperity. But too much of the
actual savings used to balance the budget have come from Medicare.
At the time the BBA was enacted, those savings were expected to total
$116 billion over five years. Now, they are estimated by CBO to be
nearly twice as great--nearly $200 billion over five years. Such deep
cuts in Medicare are clearly unfair and unacceptable.
Not surprisingly, all of us are now hearing from bedrock health care
institutions across the country that are being devastated by these
excessive cuts. Teaching hospitals--community hositals--community
health centers and many others. We are hearing from those who care for
the elderly and disabled when they leave the hospital--nursing homes--
home health agencies--rehabilitation facilities. We are hearing from
virtually every one who cares for the 40 million senior citizens and
disabled citizens on Medicare. They are telling us in no uncertain
terms that Congress went too far.
This motion is the first step toward reducing the steepest cuts. It
would provide $20 billion over the next ten years to slow or eliminate
the harshest impact of the Balanced Budget Act. It would ensure that
the nation's hospitals and other health care facilities will be able to
care for senior citizens and the disabled in the years ahead.
With the retirement of the baby boom generation, the last thing we
should be doing is jeopardizing the viability of the many health care
facilities that depend on Medicare for their survival. These
institutions are being hard hit in cities and towns across the nation.
Often, the hospitals and other institutions that care for Medicare
patients also care for other patients as well. Health care in the
entire community is being threatened.
Teaching hospitals are on the receiving end of a triple-whammy. The
slash in Medicare reductions is leading to less patient care, less
doctor training, and less medical research at the nation's top
hospitals. In my own state of Massachusetts, for the first time in
history, some of the finest and most renowned teaching hospitals in the
country are now operating at a deficit. This situation is
unsustainable--and it is happening all over our country. We will all
suffer if these great institutions are forced out of business or into
the arms of for-profit corporations.
Community hospitals are suffering, too. Throughout my State of
Massachusetts, we are seeing red ink and cutbacks in essential
services. This, too, is happening all over the country.
In Massachusetts alone, house health agencies are losing $160 million
a year. Twenty agencies have closed their doors since the Balanced
Budget Act went into effect. Many others are seeing fewer patients, and
seeing their remaining patients less often. The home-bound elderly are
especially vulnerable, and are suffering even more. In just the last
two weeks, two Massachusetts nursing homes have declared bankruptcy.
This proposal is an important step to restore the viability of these
indispensable institutions in our health care system, and I urge the
Senate to approve it. We must undo the damage before it is too late.
The last thing we need to see on the doors of the nation's teaching
hospitals, community hospitals, home health agencies, and nursing
homes, is a sign that says, ``Closed because of the ill-considered
activities of the United States Congress.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 234 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--50
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kerrey
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 50, the nays are 50.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the motion falls.
Without objection, the motion to table is agreed to.
The Senator from Tennessee.
change of vote
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 234, I voted
``no.'' It was my intention to vote ``aye.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous
consent that I may be permitted to change my vote. It will in no way
change the outcome of the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Amendment No. 1467
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1467.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist) proposes an
amendment numbered 1467.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in a previous edition of the Record.)
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate
amendment that goes right at the heart of what we should be doing about
Medicare. It says Congress should be acting to modernize Medicare, to
ensure its solvency, and to include prescription drugs.
The congressional budget plan has $505 billion over the next 10 years
in unallocated budget surpluses that could be used for long-term
Medicare reform. In addition, the congressional budget resolution for
the year 2000 has specifically set aside $90 billion for this purpose.
Thus, my sense-of-the-Senate amendment says that the unallocated on-
budget surpluses provide adequate resources and that: No. 1, the
congressional budget resolution provides a sound framework for the
modernization of Medicare; No. 2, improving the solvency of Medicare;
and No. 3, improving coverage of prescription drugs.
Congress should act to accomplish these goals for the Medicare
program.
[[Page
S9891]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, with great respect, I must inform this
body that this amendment is pure fiction. It is pure fiction because
the House and the Senate this year have been using Congressional Budget
Office baseline numbers to predict what the surplus is or is not and
what is left for spending. Under that formula, there is virtually no
money in this tax bill left for discretionary spending.
A few days ago, a new chart suddenly popped up. The new chart comes
up with this money. How does it come up with this money? It basically
assumes that the Congress, over the next 10 years, is going to not only
cut discretionary spending under the caps as planned but then not raise
discretionary spending above inflation over the next 8 years.
I say that is a fiction--it is just not going to happen, so the money
is not there--developed by this recent new chart.
If it is an accurate assumption that there is no spending, then it
cuts discretionary spending by 50 percent, one or the other. It is a
fiction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on amendment No. 1467.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending
amendment violates 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
Mr. FRIST. Pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act, I move to waive
the Budget Act for the consideration of my amendment No. 1467, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 235 Leg.]
YEAS--54
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). On this vote the yeas are 54, the
nays are 46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of
order is sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Frist Medicare Amendment
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I voted against the Medicare Sense of
the Senate amendment numbered 1467, offered by Senator Frist. For the
benefit of my constituents in West Virginia, I offer a brief
explanation for why I voted the way I did.
I opposed Senator Frist's amendment because, in my judgment, it is
based on a fiction. As we all know, the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) has projected a $996 billion non-Social Security surplus over the
next ten years. The Frist amendment said that, even allowing for the
$792 billion tax cut, there was still enough money left over to provide
for the long-term solvency of the Medicare system. One need not be an
economist, or even an expert in budget policy, to understand why that
was just plain wrong.
The Republican tax cut plan will cost $971 billion over the next ten
years--$792 billion for the actual tax cut, plus $179 billion in
additional interest payments on the debt. That leaves $25 billion of
the non-Social Security surplus. From that amount, the Republicans have
said we can provide for emergency expenditures for natural disasters
and international conflicts, which averages $80 billion over ten years;
fund current operations of government; and reserve enough money for
Medicare. And, as I say, they would do all that without using the
Social Security surplus. As anyone can plainly see, that is just not
possible. In all good conscience, I could not vote for the Frist
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Motion To Recommit
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up a motion we have at the desk
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] moves to
recommit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with
instructions to report back to the Senate within 3 days,
with an amendment to correct the fact that the bill uses
Social Security surpluses for tax breaks by causing on-
budget deficits, taking into account both revenue losses
and additional interest costs caused by the higher levels
of debt that would result from the bill's enactment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the motion is very simple. It directs
the Finance Committee to correct the bill so that it does not raid
Social Security surpluses in any year to pay for tax cuts. In its
current form, this bill would use Social Security surpluses in each of
the second 5 years after enactment.
Altogether, $75 billion of Social Security money will be used to pay
for the broad-based tax rebates that are largely for special interests
and for the very wealthy. That is the intent, and it is inconsistent
with the Social Security lockbox that the Republicans claim to support.
If my colleagues are serious about stopping Congress from raiding
these surpluses, they will support my motion. The Finance Committee can
correct the problem very quickly, and then we can proceed to consider
the bill within only a few days.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
TABLE 3.--CBO ESTIMATE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET RESOLUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BASELINE SURPLUS OR DEFICIT (-)
On-budget.................................................. -4 14 38 82 75 85 92 129 146 157 178 996
Off-budget................................................. 125 147 155 164 172 181 195 205 217 228 235 1,901
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 120 161 193 246 247 266 286 334 364 385 413 2,986
====================================================================================================================================
EFFECTS OF THE BUDGET RESOLUTION'S POLICIES
Revenues................................................... 0 0 -8 -54 -32 -49 -63 -109 -136 -151 -177 -778
====================================================================================================================================
Outlays:
Discretionry \1\......................................... 0 0 0 0 10 6 -6 -24 -42 -55 -70 -180
[[Page
S9892]]
Mandatory................................................ 0 (\2\) 1 1 1 1 1 (\2\) (\2\) -1 -1 4
*COM008**COM008*......................................... 0 (\2\) (\2\) 2 4 7 10 15 20 26 32 117
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal \3\........................................... 0 (\2\) 1 3 16 14 5 -9 -22 -29 -38 -59
Total \4\.............................................. 0 (\2\) -9 -57 -48 -63 -68 -100 -114 -121 -139 -719
====================================================================================================================================
SURPLUS OR DEFICIT (-) UNDER THE BUDGET RESOLUTION'S
POLICIES AS ESTIMATED BY CBO
On-budget.................................................. -4 14 29 26 27 21 24 29 32 36 39 277
Off-budget................................................. 125 147 155 164 172 181 195 205 217 228 234 1,901
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 120 161 184 190 199 203 219 234 250 263 275 2,178
Memorandum:
Debt Held by the Public:
Baseline............................................... 3,168 3,473 3,297 3,066 2,835 2,584 2,312 1,992 1,640 1,267 865 NA
Budget resolution as estimated by CBO.................. 3,618 3,473 3,305 3,132 2,949 2,761 2,557 2,336 2,099 1,847 1,584 NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The effect of the 1999 supplemental appropriations bill (P.L. 106-31), which was enacted after the resolution was passed, has been added to the resolution totals. Also, the projections
include spending from contingent emergencies.
\2\ Less than $500 million.
\3\ Effect on outlays.
\4\ Effect on the surplus.
Note: NA = not applicable.
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this table clearly shows there is no
Social Security money in this tax cut.
Secondly, maybe the Senator is confused. CBO says the President still
does not lock up all the Social Security money. It is $30 billion
short.
Last, I suggest if they are really concerned about the Social
Security trust fund size, why are they filibustering against a lockbox
that would encapsulate it and make sure it is there?
In summary, the Senator from New Jersey is using the wrong chart. It
does not apply to the real situation. We are using no Social Security
money in terms of our tax cut.
I move to table the Lautenberg motion to recommit and ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the motion to recommit. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 236 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--45
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Amendment No. 1469, As Modified
(Purpose: To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes and the tax on
generation-skipping transfers, to repeal a step up basis at death, and
for other purposes)
Mr. KYL. I call up amendment No. 1469, and ask unanimous consent that
it be modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment
numbered 1469, as modified.
Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Beginning on page 226, line 1, strike through page 237,
line 5, and insert:
TITLE VII--ESTATE AND GIFT TAX RELIEF PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Repeal of Estate, Gift, and Generation-Skipping Taxes;
Repeal of Step Up in Basis At Death
SEC. 701. REPEAL OF ESTATE, GIFT, AND GENERATION-SKIPPING
TAXES.
(a) In General.--Subtitle B is hereby repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a)
shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts and
generation-skipping transfers made, after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 702. TERMINATION OF STEP UP IN BASIS AT DEATH.
(a) Termination of Application of Section 1014.--Section
1014 (relating to basis of property acquired from a decedent)
is amended by adding at the end the follow
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
TAXPAYER REFUND ACT OF 1999
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
TAXPAYER REFUND ACT OF 1999
(Senate - July 30, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages S9885-
S9937]
TAXPAYER REFUND ACT OF 1999
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of
S. 1429, which the clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:
A bill (
S. 1429) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
section 104 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2000.
Pending:
Bingaman amendment No. 1462, to express the sense of the
Senate regarding investment in education.
Hutchison modified amendment No. 1472, to provide for the
relief of the marriage tax penalty beginning in the year
2001.
Roth (for Grassley) amendment No. 1388, making technical
corrections to the Saver Act.
Roth (for Abraham) amendment No. 1411, to provide that no
Federal income tax shall be imposed on amounts received, and
lands recovered, by Holocaust victims for their heirs.
Roth (for Sessions) amendment No. 1412, to provide for the
Collegiate Learning and Students Savings (CLASS) Act title.
Roth (for Collins/Coverdell) modified amendment No. 1446,
to eliminate the 2-percent floor on miscellaneous itemized
deductions for qualified professional development and
incidental expenses of elementary and secondary school
teachers.
Roth (for Abraham) amendment No. 1455, to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the deduction for
computer donations to schools and to allow a tax credit for
donated computers.
amendment no. 1462
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 15
minutes equally divided with respect to the Bingaman amendment No.
1462.
Who yields time?
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time is allotted to me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minute
s 30 seconds.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield myself 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment I presented yesterday and
that we are going to vote on first this morning is a simple statement
that we should reduce the size of the tax cut that is proposed by $132
billion so that we will have funds available to maintain the current
level of effort in support of education. It, I grant you, is a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution. It does not ensure that the money is spent
there, but to my mind it at least reserves those funds so we can
maintain the current level of effort in support of education. In other
words, I believe we should be on record for funding education at least
at current levels before we settle on the size of the tax cut that we
can afford.
Some might ask why am I singling out education. Well,
S. 1429 is more
[[Page
S9886]]
than just a tax bill; it is a reconciliation bill, which means, at
least in rough form, it purports to set national priorities for the
next 10 years. I believe that a very top priority should be providing
quality education to the young people of this Nation. Our future
depends more on that investment than it does on virtually any other
investment we might make.
So if education is a priority, what is the relationship of this tax
cut bill to education? Now, as I understand the estimates for the next
10 years, the tax cut bill is so large that it will require us to make
significant cuts in discretionary spending, including education, in
this coming decade, and that is the concern I have and that is what has
prompted this amendment.
Yesterday, as I was describing the amendment, I was informed that my
concern is unfounded; that in fact even after the tax cut--and I know
people do not like to have it referred to as a massive tax cut; I
notice that is what the Wall Street Journal called it this morning in
their headline--there will be plenty of discretionary funds for
education. That was the information I was given.
So let me look at the figures I have and see where I am confused on
this and where I have misunderstood the situation.
First of all, we all expect a surplus, and that is why we are having
this debate and talking about cutting taxes in the first place. So we
all agree to that. We also all agree that the portion of that surplus
attributable to Social Security should be left for Social Security. And
that is about $1.9 trillion. There is no dispute about that that I am
aware of, at least in this debate.
So after we take that out, what is left? At the beginning of the
debate, the Congressional Budget Office came out with the figure in the
range of $1 trillion, the non-Social Security-related surplus. So that
is represented here. This chart shows CBO, Congressional Budget Office.
This column represents the non-Social Security surplus as it was
understood by me when we started the debate.
Now I am informed that we have a new estimate and that the surplus is
not going to be $2.8 trillion over the next 10 years; instead, it is
going to be over $3.3 trillion. So there is going to be substantially
more money. The question is, Where did we find this additional $400 to
$500 billion?
Mr. President, let me yield myself 1 more minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. It was arrived at by assuming that less money is going
to be spent on discretionary spending during the 10 years. The
Congressional Budget Office assumed that $595 billion would be cut in
discretionary spending. The new claim is that there is going to be $1
trillion cut, and that by cutting discretionary spending by $1 trillion
instead of by $595 billion, we are going to have extra money that we
can turn around and spend on discretionary accounts.
Mr. President, that doesn't add up in my mind. I believe
discretionary accounts are important. I believe education has to be at
the top of that list. I do not see where we can expect to find the
money to maintain current levels of effort on education if we vote for
this very large tax cut. That is why the size of the tax cut should be
reduced so that education programs will not have to be cut.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 25 seconds.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the balance of my time to the Senator from
Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman. This is a very
important amendment that he has offered. Certainly, as we are talking
about what the future of our country is going to be, we should be
looking at what we are doing to invest in our young children today so
they can be economically viable when they graduate from high school and
college 15, 20 years from now, making sure that we have the money there
for the Head Start Program, Pell grants, early childhood education.
These are important investments in our children, and if we follow
through on a massive tax cut at this time, as the Senator from New
Mexico has said, in the future we will not have the money to make sure
that our kids get the kind of education they need to be viable members
of our community. This is a very important amendment.
As we come to the end of this debate about what we are going to do to
invest in our future, let's remember that if we put in place a tax cut
such as this, we will harm our young children, we will harm Social
Security and Medicare and critical programs for women in this country
to make sure they don't live in poverty. We will not be able to pay off
our debt, a very important issue that is facing us, which we have not
left ourselves room for with a massive tax cut of this size.
Most critically, we will not be able to do what we have a
responsibility to do, not only as Senators but as parents and as adults
in this country, to make sure that those who follow us have the skills
they need to make sure this country continues to run well in the
future. Investment in Pell grants and in early childhood education, and
investment in education, class size reduction, and training of our
teachers will make a difference for the future. We have a
responsibility to do that.
I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his work on education, and I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as I said yesterday, I don't normally
take to the Senate floor and speak in opposition to an amendment of my
colleague from New Mexico. But I did yesterday, and I must this morning
because if this amendment is reported in New Mexico, and if it says to
constituents of our State that the budget resolution we adopted, and
what will be left over after the tax cut would decimate education, then
it would appear to me that I must answer because that isn't true.
First of all, the Senator from New Mexico, my colleague, is at least
not as sensational in his approach as the President was yesterday. The
President even knows right down to the nickel what is not going to be
spent in education. That is impossible. He says that 544,000 kids
aren't going to be able to learn to read. That is ludicrous. If that is
the kind of talk he needs to defeat a tax bill, then good luck to him.
It is just absolutely untrue.
Let's get the facts as I remember and understand them. We produced a
budget resolution. It is nothing new with reference to the taxes; $792
billion spread out over 10 years was the tax cut in that bill. We also
allocated the remaining money for the next decade and, incidentally, in
doing that, even though there was a reduction in discretionary
spending, the highest priority domestic program was education, for all
the reasons stated on the floor by Senator Murray and Senator Bingaman.
It is terribly important that we use our education dollars right and
better but that there be more of them. We put $37 billion in additional
money during the first 5 years of that budget for education.
Now, what happened after that? After that, some 3 months later, the
Congressional Budget Office did a midsession review and told us there
was more money than that. As a matter of fact, there was $170 billion
more in the surplus account. We didn't add some of that to the tax cut.
It is sitting there. What I did, so that everyone would understand, I
said let's look at this surplus in the chart I used yesterday, and
let's assume that we freeze discretionary spending and ask CBO how much
money would then be available to put back into discretionary accounts
during the decade.
They told us: We don't know whether you will use it in discretionary
accounts. We can't say that.
But there is $505 billion that could be added into priority spending.
I believe that means all of the discretionary spending can go up
significantly and you can establish education as a high-priority item
and fund it at levels higher than we have now, which I think
Republicans will do if we have reform in the educational allowances of
the Federal Government, so that there is accountability and flexibility
in the programs that we send there.
I believe what my colleague from New Mexico is expressing on the
floor
[[Page
S9887]]
is a sincere desire that we be sure that in the discretionary accounts
we fund education adequately. If that is what he was saying, I join
with him in saying that is true. But when he says you need to take $122
billion--or whatever the number is--out of the tax cut in order to do
that, I disagree. I don't think you have to do that.
Plain and simple, I think there is plenty of discretionary money
available. I add, if you use the President's numbers on Medicare--and
he said you only needed $46 billion to fix prescription drugs--you have
$505 billion, less the $46 billion, and all the rest can go to
discretionary spending in the next decade. I am not trying to mislead
anybody. In order to understand it, I said start with the premise that
we freeze all these accounts and put in what is left. If you look at
the budget resolution, we put $181 billion into those accounts, with
education being the highest priority. It just happens there is more
than that $181 billion because the midsession review added many
billions of dollars in accumulated surplus.
I am fully aware that Senator Bingaman, my colleague, has regularly
and consistently as a member of the Committee on Education, and on the
floor, been a promoter and a staunch supporter of education. I agree
with him, but I believe he is wrong in thinking that we have to reduce
the tax cut in order to be sure we do that. I also remind everybody
that there are some very significant education programs in this tax
bill. It makes it easier to continue your education because it has
allowances, credits, and deductions in the adult education area. It
makes it easier to pay off student loans. It makes college more
affordable, and it provides tax exempt financing for school
construction. All of that is in the Roth bill.
Whatever time I had remaining, I yield back.
I make a point of order that the Bingaman amendment No. 1462 is
extraneous to the bill before us. Therefore, I raise a point of order
under section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of
that act for the consideration of the pending amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 1472, As Further Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 15
minutes equally divided for concluding remarks with respect to the
Hutchison of Texas amendment, No. 1472.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, under the previous unanimous consent
agreement, I send a modification of the amendment to the desk to
amendment No. 1472.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 1472), as further modified, is as follows:
On page 10, line 6, strike ``2004'' and insert ``2005''.
On page 10, strike the matter between lines 19 and 20, and
insert:
Applicable
``Calendar year: dollar amount:
2006 or 2007..............................................$4,000 ....
2008 and thereafter......................................$5,000. ....
On page 11, strike the matter before line 1, and insert:
Applicable
``Calendar year: dollar amount:
2006 or 2007..............................................$2,000 ....
2008 and thereafter......................................$2,500. ....
On page 11, line 3, strike ``2007'' and insert ``2008''.
On page 11, line 11, strike ``2006'' and insert ``2007''.
On page 32, between lines 14 and 15, insert:
SEC. ____. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD
DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) (relating
to standard deduction) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and
inserting ``twice the dollar amount in effect under
subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'',
(2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B),
(3) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in
subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.'', and
(4) by striking subparagraph (D).
(b) Phase-in.--Subsection (c) of section 63 is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Phase-in of increase in basic standard deduction.--In
the case of taxable years beginning before January 1, 2008--
``(A) paragraph (2)(A) shall be applied by substituting for
`twice'--
``(i) `1.671 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2001,
``(ii) `1.70 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2002,
``(iii) `1.727 times' in the case of taxable years
beginning during 2003,
``(iv) `1.837 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2004,
``(v) `1.951 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2005,
``(vi) `1.953 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2006, and
``(vii) `1.973 times' in the case of taxable years
beginning during 2007, and
``(B) the basic standard deduction for a married individual
filing a separate return shall be one-half of the amount
applicable under paragraph (2)(A).
If any amount determined under subparagraph (A) is not a
multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the next
lowest multiple of $50.''.
(c) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(6) is amended by
striking ``(other than with'' and all that follows through
``shall be applied'' and inserting ``(other than with respect
to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be applied''.
(2) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) is amended by adding at
the end the following flush sentence:
``The preceding sentence shall not apply to the amount
referred to in paragraph (2)(A).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
On page 38, line 18, strike ``2000'' and insert ``2002''.
On page 236, strike line 12 through the matter following
line 21, and insert:
(a) In General.--Section 2503(b) (relating to exclusions
from gifts) is amended--
(1) by striking the following:
``(b) Exclusions From Gifts.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of gifts'',
(2) by inserting the following:
``(b) Exclusions From Gifts.--In the case of gifts'',
(3) by striking paragraph (2), and
(4) by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$20,000''.
On page 237, line 3, strike ``2000'' and insert ``2004''.
On page 262, strike line
s 15 through 17, and insert:
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2004, and before January 1, 2007.
On page 270, line 18, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2004''.
On page 273, line 21, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2004''.
On page 275, line 12, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2004''.
On page 277, line 13, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2005''.
On page 278, line 13, strike ``2002'' and insert ``2004''.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I now yield 2 minutes to Senator
Ashcroft of Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from
Texas for her outstanding work correcting a pernicious discrimination
against the most valuable institution in our society, the family. I
thank the chairman for his sensitivity to this important issue, for
placing in this bill procedures to remedy the marriage penalty.
The marriage penalty simply is an anomaly. It is a strangeness in the
tax structure that has evolved, that penalizes people for being
married. It puts them into higher tax brackets when they get married
than when they were single. When people get married, they start paying
a tax penalty. That is something we should stop.
The Senator from Texas and the chairman of this committee have agreed
that we should stop it. And we should, as a matter of fact, according
to the amendment of the Senator from Texas, of which I am an original
cosponsor along with Senator Brownback, accelerate the time at which we
begin to stop this very serious fault with the tax system.
America should not penalize the family. It should not make it harder
for people to have families. It should not make it financially more
difficult for two people to be married and live together than unmarried
and live together. That is a simple fact. It is because the family is
the best department of social services, the best department of
education; it is the best place in which individuals are enriched to
learn individual responsibility and the values and character our
culture needs to survive.
[[Page
S9888]]
I am very pleased to be a part of this tax measure which will say
about America's families that we cherish them rather than punish them
and it is time for all of us to join together and eliminate the
marriage tax penalty.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Who yields time? The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is the 4
minutes from my 7\1/2\ minutes?
Mr. ROTH. I am yielding this from my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. ROTH. Actually, Mr. President, I want to add my support for the
amendment put forward by Senator Hutchison. It builds on the basic
objectives of the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999, particularly objectives
of helping families bring greater equity to the Tax Code.
One very important provision of the tax relief package we have
proposed is the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. There is
strong bipartisan agreement that this penalty is not only unfair but
that it is counterproductive in a way that discourages couples from
marrying.
When I introduced the Taxpayer Refund Act 2 days ago, I introduced
Robert and Dianne, a hypothetical couple who had fallen in love and
wanted to marry. I explained how, as individuals, they would not be
considered wealthy, how Robert worked as a foreman in an auto plant and
Dianne worked as a nurse. I then explained how, as a married couple
with a combined income, they would be considered well off and how they
would end up paying the Government $1,500 more in taxes than they would
if they remained single.
The Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 does away with the marriage tax
penalty. It completely eliminates the penalty for Robert and Dianne and
for any other couples who choose to marry. What I like about the
amendment introduced by our distinguished colleague from Texas, Senator
Hutchison, is that under her plan the tax relief is expedited. This is
done at a price. The change does require the delay of other provisions
that provide relief for the taxpayer. I regret that. But we do think it
is desirable to provide marriage relief as early as possible.
Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator will yield just a few minutes?
Mr. ROTH. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I again compliment my good friend, the
Senator from Texas, as well as the chairman of the committee. The
Senator from Texas offered this amendment last night, and at that time
I explained we thought this was a very good amendment because it moves
in the direction of the Democratic substitute, raising the standard
deduction, in her case for married couples, to eliminate the marriage
tax penalty. We would have gone further, but we compliment the Senator
in going in this direction.
Last night, too, there was a slight question how this was going to be
paid for. We have worked it out overnight. As I understand it--the
Senator may correct me if I am wrong--the AMT delayed relief provisions
are no longer in place, but rather there will be a delay in the
expansion of the 15-percent bracket in order to pay for this.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. The Senator is correct. There are delays. Nothing is
eliminated, but there are delays in several provisions because we are
trying to say this is our first priority.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think that is a good offset. It adds a
little more progressivity, frankly, to the bill, than otherwise would
be there.
I compliment the Senator on her amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I am
delighted to join her in this amendment that it appears will garner
overwhelming support. I hope that sends a strong signal across this
country that today is a day to celebrate. We should be celebrating the
institution of marriage and support that institution rather than tax
it.
For many years now we have taxed it. Clearly, if there is a policy in
Government that stands it is if you want less of something, tax it; if
you want more of something, subsidize it. We have been taxing marriage,
and marriage has fallen off in this country 43 percent over the last 30
years. That is a terrible situation for an institution that is so
central.
I note to my colleagues, we all frequently talk about family values.
Thomas, from Hilliard, OH, writes in about this point on the marriage
penalty and the notion of family values:
No person who legitimately supports family values could be
against this bill. The marriage penalty is but another
example of how in the past 40 years the federal government
has enacted policies that have broken down the fundamental
institutions that were the strength of this country from the
start.
I could not have put it better. I am delighted it appears that this
amendment is going to be agreed to. I hope we can get it to the
President's desk and that the President will be supportive of
eliminating the marriage penalty tax. I hope as well we could go
further in the future and enact income splitting, that we could provide
for a couple to split their income. This would be even more supportive
of this fundamental institution in our culture, in our Nation, of
marriage. I hope we can take that step on into the future.
I am delighted to have the chairman's support in this. I urge all my
colleagues in the name of family values, vote for this amendment.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are remaining 3 minutes 20 seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will finish on my statement.
Something very important is happening. What is important is, we are
apparently going to pass overwhelmingly the only amendment that will
have passed on this bill. On this very important tax cut measure, we
are going to add certainly the first amendment, and maybe the only one,
that says the marriage tax penalty is not going to be allowed to stand
in the United States of America. That is what we are doing today. The
bill provides for marriage tax penalty relief in 2005. I applaud the
committee for doing that. But I thought we should address it earlier.
That is why Senator Ashcroft, Senator Brownback, Senator Domenici,
Senator Roth, and Senator Baucus have come together and said that is
right. The people of this country who want to get married should not
have to pay $1,000 in taxes just because they got married. We are going
to end it today because we are sending a signal that is joined by the
House that this is our first priority.
So a high school football coach and a schoolteacher can get married
and not move into a bracket that is almost double just because they got
married. It hits our middle-income taxpayers the most. They are the
ones who are trying to save for a new house or a new car or to do
something special for their new baby. We are going to send a signal out
of the Senate, along with the House, to the President, saying: Mr.
President, we are going to have $1 trillion in income tax surplus. Are
you serious in saying you would veto this bill that gives marriage tax
penalty relief to our country, that gives pension relief to the women
who go in and out of the workforce who are unable to have the same
pension capabilities as those who never leave the workforce?
Is the President serious about vetoing a bill that provides for
Social Security, that provides for Medicare and education, and, yes,
the marriage tax penalty relief?
Mr. President, we are making a statement with this amendment. I am
proud the Senate is going to take up and I believe overwhelmingly pass
a
[[Page
S9889]]
priority of eliminating the marriage tax penalty in this country once
and for all. I urge my colleagues to give a unanimous vote for the
married people who have been living with a penalty that is not
warranted.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we yield back the remainder of the time.
Vote on Amendment No. 1462
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is now
on the motion to waive the Budget Act on the Bingaman amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--52
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 48, the nays are 52.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would object to any unanimous consent
regarding comments on my outfit this morning.
I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in the series be
limited to 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I urge my colleagues, please stay in the Chamber. We still
do have a number of amendments we will need to go through. Senator
Daschle and I have agreed that we want to limit those to 10 minutes
each, with 2 minutes between the 10 minutes for 1 minute of explanation
on each side. If we do that, I believe we can still finish this bill at
a reasonable hour.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Brig Pari and
Ed McClellan of the Finance Committee staff be granted floor privileges
for the duration of the consideration of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote On Amendment No. 1472, As Further Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on the amendment of the
Senator from Texas. Does the Senator request the yeas and nays?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be
added as an original cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1472, as further
modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]
YEAS--98
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--2
Hollings
Voinovich
The amendment (No. 1472), as further modified, was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Privilege Of The Floor
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two
staffers, Kathleen Strottman and Ben Cannon, have floor privileges.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of
my staff, Chris Stanek, have access to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Motion To Recommit
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk and ask that it
be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] moves to
recommit
S. 1429, the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999, to the
Committee on Finance, with instructions to report back to the
Senate within 3 days, with an amendment to reserve $20
billion over ten years for relief from the unintended
consequences of the Balanced Budget Act on teaching
hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health care
providers, rural and other community hospitals, and other
health care providers, by reducing or deferring certain new
tax breaks in the bill.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I understand I have 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me share with my colleagues what this
is. Under the Balanced Budget Act, we set out to save some $103 billion
in Medicare expenditures with respect to hospitals, home care, et
cetera. The problem is the unintended consequences of the way that has
happened, coupled with the managed care process, in fact, about $205
billion in Medicare payments has been reduced. The result is that, in
hospitals, home care facilities, and nursing homes all across the
country, all of our States are significantly affected in the quality of
care that is being delivered.
Special care units in hospitals are closing. Home care facilities are
refusing patients. There has been a significant reduction in the
quality of care across the country. Our teaching hospitals are
threatened. What we are saying is that we need to reserve some $20
billion in order to be able to adequately make up for the unintended
[[Page
S9890]]
consequences of the Balanced Budget Act.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, although the Kerry amendment is well-
intended, it is not germane to this reconciliation bill. The Finance
Committee is paying close attention to the concerns of health care
providers and beneficiaries. Over ten Medicare hearings have been held
this year, three focusing specifically on BBA 1997 policies.
The Finance Committee is also developing a Medicare package that will
address the many concerns in the Balanced Budget Act. The tax package
in no way interferes with this process.
Finally, I might add that even the President's Medicare proposal sets
aside a maximum of only $7.5 billion over 10 years to address BBA
fixes, $12.5 billion less than this amendment.
The amendment is not germane to this reconciliation legislation, and
I raise a point of order under section 305 (b)(2) of the Budget Act.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act,
I move to waive that section in that act for consideration of this
motion.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 helped bring us to this
era of budget surpluses and economic prosperity. But too much of the
actual savings used to balance the budget have come from Medicare.
At the time the BBA was enacted, those savings were expected to total
$116 billion over five years. Now, they are estimated by CBO to be
nearly twice as great--nearly $200 billion over five years. Such deep
cuts in Medicare are clearly unfair and unacceptable.
Not surprisingly, all of us are now hearing from bedrock health care
institutions across the country that are being devastated by these
excessive cuts. Teaching hospitals--community hositals--community
health centers and many others. We are hearing from those who care for
the elderly and disabled when they leave the hospital--nursing homes--
home health agencies--rehabilitation facilities. We are hearing from
virtually every one who cares for the 40 million senior citizens and
disabled citizens on Medicare. They are telling us in no uncertain
terms that Congress went too far.
This motion is the first step toward reducing the steepest cuts. It
would provide $20 billion over the next ten years to slow or eliminate
the harshest impact of the Balanced Budget Act. It would ensure that
the nation's hospitals and other health care facilities will be able to
care for senior citizens and the disabled in the years ahead.
With the retirement of the baby boom generation, the last thing we
should be doing is jeopardizing the viability of the many health care
facilities that depend on Medicare for their survival. These
institutions are being hard hit in cities and towns across the nation.
Often, the hospitals and other institutions that care for Medicare
patients also care for other patients as well. Health care in the
entire community is being threatened.
Teaching hospitals are on the receiving end of a triple-whammy. The
slash in Medicare reductions is leading to less patient care, less
doctor training, and less medical research at the nation's top
hospitals. In my own state of Massachusetts, for the first time in
history, some of the finest and most renowned teaching hospitals in the
country are now operating at a deficit. This situation is
unsustainable--and it is happening all over our country. We will all
suffer if these great institutions are forced out of business or into
the arms of for-profit corporations.
Community hospitals are suffering, too. Throughout my State of
Massachusetts, we are seeing red ink and cutbacks in essential
services. This, too, is happening all over the country.
In Massachusetts alone, house health agencies are losing $160 million
a year. Twenty agencies have closed their doors since the Balanced
Budget Act went into effect. Many others are seeing fewer patients, and
seeing their remaining patients less often. The home-bound elderly are
especially vulnerable, and are suffering even more. In just the last
two weeks, two Massachusetts nursing homes have declared bankruptcy.
This proposal is an important step to restore the viability of these
indispensable institutions in our health care system, and I urge the
Senate to approve it. We must undo the damage before it is too late.
The last thing we need to see on the doors of the nation's teaching
hospitals, community hospitals, home health agencies, and nursing
homes, is a sign that says, ``Closed because of the ill-considered
activities of the United States Congress.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 234 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--50
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kerrey
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 50, the nays are 50.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the motion falls.
Without objection, the motion to table is agreed to.
The Senator from Tennessee.
change of vote
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 234, I voted
``no.'' It was my intention to vote ``aye.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous
consent that I may be permitted to change my vote. It will in no way
change the outcome of the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Amendment No. 1467
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1467.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist) proposes an
amendment numbered 1467.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in a previous edition of the Record.)
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate
amendment that goes right at the heart of what we should be doing about
Medicare. It says Congress should be acting to modernize Medicare, to
ensure its solvency, and to include prescription drugs.
The congressional budget plan has $505 billion over the next 10 years
in unallocated budget surpluses that could be used for long-term
Medicare reform. In addition, the congressional budget resolution for
the year 2000 has specifically set aside $90 billion for this purpose.
Thus, my sense-of-the-Senate amendment says that the unallocated on-
budget surpluses provide adequate resources and that: No. 1, the
congressional budget resolution provides a sound framework for the
modernization of Medicare; No. 2, improving the solvency of Medicare;
and No. 3, improving coverage of prescription drugs.
Congress should act to accomplish these goals for the Medicare
program.
[[Page
S9891]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, with great respect, I must inform this
body that this amendment is pure fiction. It is pure fiction because
the House and the Senate this year have been using Congressional Budget
Office baseline numbers to predict what the surplus is or is not and
what is left for spending. Under that formula, there is virtually no
money in this tax bill left for discretionary spending.
A few days ago, a new chart suddenly popped up. The new chart comes
up with this money. How does it come up with this money? It basically
assumes that the Congress, over the next 10 years, is going to not only
cut discretionary spending under the caps as planned but then not raise
discretionary spending above inflation over the next 8 years.
I say that is a fiction--it is just not going to happen, so the money
is not there--developed by this recent new chart.
If it is an accurate assumption that there is no spending, then it
cuts discretionary spending by 50 percent, one or the other. It is a
fiction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on amendment No. 1467.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending
amendment violates 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
Mr. FRIST. Pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act, I move to waive
the Budget Act for the consideration of my amendment No. 1467, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 235 Leg.]
YEAS--54
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). On this vote the yeas are 54, the
nays are 46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of
order is sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Frist Medicare Amendment
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I voted against the Medicare Sense of
the Senate amendment numbered 1467, offered by Senator Frist. For the
benefit of my constituents in West Virginia, I offer a brief
explanation for why I voted the way I did.
I opposed Senator Frist's amendment because, in my judgment, it is
based on a fiction. As we all know, the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) has projected a $996 billion non-Social Security surplus over the
next ten years. The Frist amendment said that, even allowing for the
$792 billion tax cut, there was still enough money left over to provide
for the long-term solvency of the Medicare system. One need not be an
economist, or even an expert in budget policy, to understand why that
was just plain wrong.
The Republican tax cut plan will cost $971 billion over the next ten
years--$792 billion for the actual tax cut, plus $179 billion in
additional interest payments on the debt. That leaves $25 billion of
the non-Social Security surplus. From that amount, the Republicans have
said we can provide for emergency expenditures for natural disasters
and international conflicts, which averages $80 billion over ten years;
fund current operations of government; and reserve enough money for
Medicare. And, as I say, they would do all that without using the
Social Security surplus. As anyone can plainly see, that is just not
possible. In all good conscience, I could not vote for the Frist
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Motion To Recommit
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up a motion we have at the desk
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] moves to
recommit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with
instructions to report back to the Senate within 3 days,
with an amendment to correct the fact that the bill uses
Social Security surpluses for tax breaks by causing on-
budget deficits, taking into account both revenue losses
and additional interest costs caused by the higher levels
of debt that would result from the bill's enactment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the motion is very simple. It directs
the Finance Committee to correct the bill so that it does not raid
Social Security surpluses in any year to pay for tax cuts. In its
current form, this bill would use Social Security surpluses in each of
the second 5 years after enactment.
Altogether, $75 billion of Social Security money will be used to pay
for the broad-based tax rebates that are largely for special interests
and for the very wealthy. That is the intent, and it is inconsistent
with the Social Security lockbox that the Republicans claim to support.
If my colleagues are serious about stopping Congress from raiding
these surpluses, they will support my motion. The Finance Committee can
correct the problem very quickly, and then we can proceed to consider
the bill within only a few days.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
TABLE 3.--CBO ESTIMATE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET RESOLUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BASELINE SURPLUS OR DEFICIT (-)
On-budget.................................................. -4 14 38 82 75 85 92 129 146 157 178 996
Off-budget................................................. 125 147 155 164 172 181 195 205 217 228 235 1,901
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 120 161 193 246 247 266 286 334 364 385 413 2,986
====================================================================================================================================
EFFECTS OF THE BUDGET RESOLUTION'S POLICIES
Revenues................................................... 0 0 -8 -54 -32 -49 -63 -109 -136 -151 -177 -778
====================================================================================================================================
Outlays:
Discretionry \1\......................................... 0 0 0 0 10 6 -6 -24 -42 -55 -70 -180
[[Page
S9892]]
Mandatory................................................ 0 (\2\) 1 1 1 1 1 (\2\) (\2\) -1 -1 4
*COM008**COM008*......................................... 0 (\2\) (\2\) 2 4 7 10 15 20 26 32 117
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal \3\........................................... 0 (\2\) 1 3 16 14 5 -9 -22 -29 -38 -59
Total \4\.............................................. 0 (\2\) -9 -57 -48 -63 -68 -100 -114 -121 -139 -719
====================================================================================================================================
SURPLUS OR DEFICIT (-) UNDER THE BUDGET RESOLUTION'S
POLICIES AS ESTIMATED BY CBO
On-budget.................................................. -4 14 29 26 27 21 24 29 32 36 39 277
Off-budget................................................. 125 147 155 164 172 181 195 205 217 228 234 1,901
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 120 161 184 190 199 203 219 234 250 263 275 2,178
Memorandum:
Debt Held by the Public:
Baseline............................................... 3,168 3,473 3,297 3,066 2,835 2,584 2,312 1,992 1,640 1,267 865 NA
Budget resolution as estimated by CBO.................. 3,618 3,473 3,305 3,132 2,949 2,761 2,557 2,336 2,099 1,847 1,584 NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The effect of the 1999 supplemental appropriations bill (P.L. 106-31), which was enacted after the resolution was passed, has been added to the resolution totals. Also, the projections
include spending from contingent emergencies.
\2\ Less than $500 million.
\3\ Effect on outlays.
\4\ Effect on the surplus.
Note: NA = not applicable.
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this table clearly shows there is no
Social Security money in this tax cut.
Secondly, maybe the Senator is confused. CBO says the President still
does not lock up all the Social Security money. It is $30 billion
short.
Last, I suggest if they are really concerned about the Social
Security trust fund size, why are they filibustering against a lockbox
that would encapsulate it and make sure it is there?
In summary, the Senator from New Jersey is using the wrong chart. It
does not apply to the real situation. We are using no Social Security
money in terms of our tax cut.
I move to table the Lautenberg motion to recommit and ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the motion to recommit. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 236 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--45
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Amendment No. 1469, As Modified
(Purpose: To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes and the tax on
generation-skipping transfers, to repeal a step up basis at death, and
for other purposes)
Mr. KYL. I call up amendment No. 1469, and ask unanimous consent that
it be modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment
numbered 1469, as modified.
Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Beginning on page 226, line 1, strike through page 237,
line 5, and insert:
TITLE VII--ESTATE AND GIFT TAX RELIEF PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Repeal of Estate, Gift, and Generation-Skipping Taxes;
Repeal of Step Up in Basis At Death
SEC. 701. REPEAL OF ESTATE, GIFT, AND GENERATION-SKIPPING
TAXES.
(a) In General.--Subtitle B is hereby repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a)
shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts and
generation-skipping transfers made, after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 702. TERMINATION OF STEP UP IN BASIS AT DEATH.
(a) Termination of Application of Section 1014.--Section
1014 (relating to basis of property acquired from a decedent)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
TAXPAYER REFUND ACT OF 1999
(Senate - July 30, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages S9885-
S9937]
TAXPAYER REFUND ACT OF 1999
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of
S. 1429, which the clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:
A bill (
S. 1429) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
section 104 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2000.
Pending:
Bingaman amendment No. 1462, to express the sense of the
Senate regarding investment in education.
Hutchison modified amendment No. 1472, to provide for the
relief of the marriage tax penalty beginning in the year
2001.
Roth (for Grassley) amendment No. 1388, making technical
corrections to the Saver Act.
Roth (for Abraham) amendment No. 1411, to provide that no
Federal income tax shall be imposed on amounts received, and
lands recovered, by Holocaust victims for their heirs.
Roth (for Sessions) amendment No. 1412, to provide for the
Collegiate Learning and Students Savings (CLASS) Act title.
Roth (for Collins/Coverdell) modified amendment No. 1446,
to eliminate the 2-percent floor on miscellaneous itemized
deductions for qualified professional development and
incidental expenses of elementary and secondary school
teachers.
Roth (for Abraham) amendment No. 1455, to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the deduction for
computer donations to schools and to allow a tax credit for
donated computers.
amendment no. 1462
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 15
minutes equally divided with respect to the Bingaman amendment No.
1462.
Who yields time?
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time is allotted to me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minute
s 30 seconds.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield myself 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment I presented yesterday and
that we are going to vote on first this morning is a simple statement
that we should reduce the size of the tax cut that is proposed by $132
billion so that we will have funds available to maintain the current
level of effort in support of education. It, I grant you, is a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution. It does not ensure that the money is spent
there, but to my mind it at least reserves those funds so we can
maintain the current level of effort in support of education. In other
words, I believe we should be on record for funding education at least
at current levels before we settle on the size of the tax cut that we
can afford.
Some might ask why am I singling out education. Well,
S. 1429 is more
[[Page
S9886]]
than just a tax bill; it is a reconciliation bill, which means, at
least in rough form, it purports to set national priorities for the
next 10 years. I believe that a very top priority should be providing
quality education to the young people of this Nation. Our future
depends more on that investment than it does on virtually any other
investment we might make.
So if education is a priority, what is the relationship of this tax
cut bill to education? Now, as I understand the estimates for the next
10 years, the tax cut bill is so large that it will require us to make
significant cuts in discretionary spending, including education, in
this coming decade, and that is the concern I have and that is what has
prompted this amendment.
Yesterday, as I was describing the amendment, I was informed that my
concern is unfounded; that in fact even after the tax cut--and I know
people do not like to have it referred to as a massive tax cut; I
notice that is what the Wall Street Journal called it this morning in
their headline--there will be plenty of discretionary funds for
education. That was the information I was given.
So let me look at the figures I have and see where I am confused on
this and where I have misunderstood the situation.
First of all, we all expect a surplus, and that is why we are having
this debate and talking about cutting taxes in the first place. So we
all agree to that. We also all agree that the portion of that surplus
attributable to Social Security should be left for Social Security. And
that is about $1.9 trillion. There is no dispute about that that I am
aware of, at least in this debate.
So after we take that out, what is left? At the beginning of the
debate, the Congressional Budget Office came out with the figure in the
range of $1 trillion, the non-Social Security-related surplus. So that
is represented here. This chart shows CBO, Congressional Budget Office.
This column represents the non-Social Security surplus as it was
understood by me when we started the debate.
Now I am informed that we have a new estimate and that the surplus is
not going to be $2.8 trillion over the next 10 years; instead, it is
going to be over $3.3 trillion. So there is going to be substantially
more money. The question is, Where did we find this additional $400 to
$500 billion?
Mr. President, let me yield myself 1 more minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. It was arrived at by assuming that less money is going
to be spent on discretionary spending during the 10 years. The
Congressional Budget Office assumed that $595 billion would be cut in
discretionary spending. The new claim is that there is going to be $1
trillion cut, and that by cutting discretionary spending by $1 trillion
instead of by $595 billion, we are going to have extra money that we
can turn around and spend on discretionary accounts.
Mr. President, that doesn't add up in my mind. I believe
discretionary accounts are important. I believe education has to be at
the top of that list. I do not see where we can expect to find the
money to maintain current levels of effort on education if we vote for
this very large tax cut. That is why the size of the tax cut should be
reduced so that education programs will not have to be cut.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 25 seconds.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the balance of my time to the Senator from
Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman. This is a very
important amendment that he has offered. Certainly, as we are talking
about what the future of our country is going to be, we should be
looking at what we are doing to invest in our young children today so
they can be economically viable when they graduate from high school and
college 15, 20 years from now, making sure that we have the money there
for the Head Start Program, Pell grants, early childhood education.
These are important investments in our children, and if we follow
through on a massive tax cut at this time, as the Senator from New
Mexico has said, in the future we will not have the money to make sure
that our kids get the kind of education they need to be viable members
of our community. This is a very important amendment.
As we come to the end of this debate about what we are going to do to
invest in our future, let's remember that if we put in place a tax cut
such as this, we will harm our young children, we will harm Social
Security and Medicare and critical programs for women in this country
to make sure they don't live in poverty. We will not be able to pay off
our debt, a very important issue that is facing us, which we have not
left ourselves room for with a massive tax cut of this size.
Most critically, we will not be able to do what we have a
responsibility to do, not only as Senators but as parents and as adults
in this country, to make sure that those who follow us have the skills
they need to make sure this country continues to run well in the
future. Investment in Pell grants and in early childhood education, and
investment in education, class size reduction, and training of our
teachers will make a difference for the future. We have a
responsibility to do that.
I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his work on education, and I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as I said yesterday, I don't normally
take to the Senate floor and speak in opposition to an amendment of my
colleague from New Mexico. But I did yesterday, and I must this morning
because if this amendment is reported in New Mexico, and if it says to
constituents of our State that the budget resolution we adopted, and
what will be left over after the tax cut would decimate education, then
it would appear to me that I must answer because that isn't true.
First of all, the Senator from New Mexico, my colleague, is at least
not as sensational in his approach as the President was yesterday. The
President even knows right down to the nickel what is not going to be
spent in education. That is impossible. He says that 544,000 kids
aren't going to be able to learn to read. That is ludicrous. If that is
the kind of talk he needs to defeat a tax bill, then good luck to him.
It is just absolutely untrue.
Let's get the facts as I remember and understand them. We produced a
budget resolution. It is nothing new with reference to the taxes; $792
billion spread out over 10 years was the tax cut in that bill. We also
allocated the remaining money for the next decade and, incidentally, in
doing that, even though there was a reduction in discretionary
spending, the highest priority domestic program was education, for all
the reasons stated on the floor by Senator Murray and Senator Bingaman.
It is terribly important that we use our education dollars right and
better but that there be more of them. We put $37 billion in additional
money during the first 5 years of that budget for education.
Now, what happened after that? After that, some 3 months later, the
Congressional Budget Office did a midsession review and told us there
was more money than that. As a matter of fact, there was $170 billion
more in the surplus account. We didn't add some of that to the tax cut.
It is sitting there. What I did, so that everyone would understand, I
said let's look at this surplus in the chart I used yesterday, and
let's assume that we freeze discretionary spending and ask CBO how much
money would then be available to put back into discretionary accounts
during the decade.
They told us: We don't know whether you will use it in discretionary
accounts. We can't say that.
But there is $505 billion that could be added into priority spending.
I believe that means all of the discretionary spending can go up
significantly and you can establish education as a high-priority item
and fund it at levels higher than we have now, which I think
Republicans will do if we have reform in the educational allowances of
the Federal Government, so that there is accountability and flexibility
in the programs that we send there.
I believe what my colleague from New Mexico is expressing on the
floor
[[Page
S9887]]
is a sincere desire that we be sure that in the discretionary accounts
we fund education adequately. If that is what he was saying, I join
with him in saying that is true. But when he says you need to take $122
billion--or whatever the number is--out of the tax cut in order to do
that, I disagree. I don't think you have to do that.
Plain and simple, I think there is plenty of discretionary money
available. I add, if you use the President's numbers on Medicare--and
he said you only needed $46 billion to fix prescription drugs--you have
$505 billion, less the $46 billion, and all the rest can go to
discretionary spending in the next decade. I am not trying to mislead
anybody. In order to understand it, I said start with the premise that
we freeze all these accounts and put in what is left. If you look at
the budget resolution, we put $181 billion into those accounts, with
education being the highest priority. It just happens there is more
than that $181 billion because the midsession review added many
billions of dollars in accumulated surplus.
I am fully aware that Senator Bingaman, my colleague, has regularly
and consistently as a member of the Committee on Education, and on the
floor, been a promoter and a staunch supporter of education. I agree
with him, but I believe he is wrong in thinking that we have to reduce
the tax cut in order to be sure we do that. I also remind everybody
that there are some very significant education programs in this tax
bill. It makes it easier to continue your education because it has
allowances, credits, and deductions in the adult education area. It
makes it easier to pay off student loans. It makes college more
affordable, and it provides tax exempt financing for school
construction. All of that is in the Roth bill.
Whatever time I had remaining, I yield back.
I make a point of order that the Bingaman amendment No. 1462 is
extraneous to the bill before us. Therefore, I raise a point of order
under section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of
that act for the consideration of the pending amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 1472, As Further Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 15
minutes equally divided for concluding remarks with respect to the
Hutchison of Texas amendment, No. 1472.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, under the previous unanimous consent
agreement, I send a modification of the amendment to the desk to
amendment No. 1472.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 1472), as further modified, is as follows:
On page 10, line 6, strike ``2004'' and insert ``2005''.
On page 10, strike the matter between lines 19 and 20, and
insert:
Applicable
``Calendar year: dollar amount:
2006 or 2007..............................................$4,000 ....
2008 and thereafter......................................$5,000. ....
On page 11, strike the matter before line 1, and insert:
Applicable
``Calendar year: dollar amount:
2006 or 2007..............................................$2,000 ....
2008 and thereafter......................................$2,500. ....
On page 11, line 3, strike ``2007'' and insert ``2008''.
On page 11, line 11, strike ``2006'' and insert ``2007''.
On page 32, between lines 14 and 15, insert:
SEC. ____. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD
DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) (relating
to standard deduction) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and
inserting ``twice the dollar amount in effect under
subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'',
(2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B),
(3) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in
subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.'', and
(4) by striking subparagraph (D).
(b) Phase-in.--Subsection (c) of section 63 is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Phase-in of increase in basic standard deduction.--In
the case of taxable years beginning before January 1, 2008--
``(A) paragraph (2)(A) shall be applied by substituting for
`twice'--
``(i) `1.671 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2001,
``(ii) `1.70 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2002,
``(iii) `1.727 times' in the case of taxable years
beginning during 2003,
``(iv) `1.837 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2004,
``(v) `1.951 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2005,
``(vi) `1.953 times' in the case of taxable years beginning
during 2006, and
``(vii) `1.973 times' in the case of taxable years
beginning during 2007, and
``(B) the basic standard deduction for a married individual
filing a separate return shall be one-half of the amount
applicable under paragraph (2)(A).
If any amount determined under subparagraph (A) is not a
multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the next
lowest multiple of $50.''.
(c) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(6) is amended by
striking ``(other than with'' and all that follows through
``shall be applied'' and inserting ``(other than with respect
to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be applied''.
(2) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) is amended by adding at
the end the following flush sentence:
``The preceding sentence shall not apply to the amount
referred to in paragraph (2)(A).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
On page 38, line 18, strike ``2000'' and insert ``2002''.
On page 236, strike line 12 through the matter following
line 21, and insert:
(a) In General.--Section 2503(b) (relating to exclusions
from gifts) is amended--
(1) by striking the following:
``(b) Exclusions From Gifts.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of gifts'',
(2) by inserting the following:
``(b) Exclusions From Gifts.--In the case of gifts'',
(3) by striking paragraph (2), and
(4) by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$20,000''.
On page 237, line 3, strike ``2000'' and insert ``2004''.
On page 262, strike line
s 15 through 17, and insert:
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2004, and before January 1, 2007.
On page 270, line 18, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2004''.
On page 273, line 21, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2004''.
On page 275, line 12, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2004''.
On page 277, line 13, strike ``2003'' and insert ``2005''.
On page 278, line 13, strike ``2002'' and insert ``2004''.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I now yield 2 minutes to Senator
Ashcroft of Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from
Texas for her outstanding work correcting a pernicious discrimination
against the most valuable institution in our society, the family. I
thank the chairman for his sensitivity to this important issue, for
placing in this bill procedures to remedy the marriage penalty.
The marriage penalty simply is an anomaly. It is a strangeness in the
tax structure that has evolved, that penalizes people for being
married. It puts them into higher tax brackets when they get married
than when they were single. When people get married, they start paying
a tax penalty. That is something we should stop.
The Senator from Texas and the chairman of this committee have agreed
that we should stop it. And we should, as a matter of fact, according
to the amendment of the Senator from Texas, of which I am an original
cosponsor along with Senator Brownback, accelerate the time at which we
begin to stop this very serious fault with the tax system.
America should not penalize the family. It should not make it harder
for people to have families. It should not make it financially more
difficult for two people to be married and live together than unmarried
and live together. That is a simple fact. It is because the family is
the best department of social services, the best department of
education; it is the best place in which individuals are enriched to
learn individual responsibility and the values and character our
culture needs to survive.
[[Page
S9888]]
I am very pleased to be a part of this tax measure which will say
about America's families that we cherish them rather than punish them
and it is time for all of us to join together and eliminate the
marriage tax penalty.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Who yields time? The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is the 4
minutes from my 7\1/2\ minutes?
Mr. ROTH. I am yielding this from my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. ROTH. Actually, Mr. President, I want to add my support for the
amendment put forward by Senator Hutchison. It builds on the basic
objectives of the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999, particularly objectives
of helping families bring greater equity to the Tax Code.
One very important provision of the tax relief package we have
proposed is the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. There is
strong bipartisan agreement that this penalty is not only unfair but
that it is counterproductive in a way that discourages couples from
marrying.
When I introduced the Taxpayer Refund Act 2 days ago, I introduced
Robert and Dianne, a hypothetical couple who had fallen in love and
wanted to marry. I explained how, as individuals, they would not be
considered wealthy, how Robert worked as a foreman in an auto plant and
Dianne worked as a nurse. I then explained how, as a married couple
with a combined income, they would be considered well off and how they
would end up paying the Government $1,500 more in taxes than they would
if they remained single.
The Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 does away with the marriage tax
penalty. It completely eliminates the penalty for Robert and Dianne and
for any other couples who choose to marry. What I like about the
amendment introduced by our distinguished colleague from Texas, Senator
Hutchison, is that under her plan the tax relief is expedited. This is
done at a price. The change does require the delay of other provisions
that provide relief for the taxpayer. I regret that. But we do think it
is desirable to provide marriage relief as early as possible.
Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator will yield just a few minutes?
Mr. ROTH. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I again compliment my good friend, the
Senator from Texas, as well as the chairman of the committee. The
Senator from Texas offered this amendment last night, and at that time
I explained we thought this was a very good amendment because it moves
in the direction of the Democratic substitute, raising the standard
deduction, in her case for married couples, to eliminate the marriage
tax penalty. We would have gone further, but we compliment the Senator
in going in this direction.
Last night, too, there was a slight question how this was going to be
paid for. We have worked it out overnight. As I understand it--the
Senator may correct me if I am wrong--the AMT delayed relief provisions
are no longer in place, but rather there will be a delay in the
expansion of the 15-percent bracket in order to pay for this.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. The Senator is correct. There are delays. Nothing is
eliminated, but there are delays in several provisions because we are
trying to say this is our first priority.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think that is a good offset. It adds a
little more progressivity, frankly, to the bill, than otherwise would
be there.
I compliment the Senator on her amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I am
delighted to join her in this amendment that it appears will garner
overwhelming support. I hope that sends a strong signal across this
country that today is a day to celebrate. We should be celebrating the
institution of marriage and support that institution rather than tax
it.
For many years now we have taxed it. Clearly, if there is a policy in
Government that stands it is if you want less of something, tax it; if
you want more of something, subsidize it. We have been taxing marriage,
and marriage has fallen off in this country 43 percent over the last 30
years. That is a terrible situation for an institution that is so
central.
I note to my colleagues, we all frequently talk about family values.
Thomas, from Hilliard, OH, writes in about this point on the marriage
penalty and the notion of family values:
No person who legitimately supports family values could be
against this bill. The marriage penalty is but another
example of how in the past 40 years the federal government
has enacted policies that have broken down the fundamental
institutions that were the strength of this country from the
start.
I could not have put it better. I am delighted it appears that this
amendment is going to be agreed to. I hope we can get it to the
President's desk and that the President will be supportive of
eliminating the marriage penalty tax. I hope as well we could go
further in the future and enact income splitting, that we could provide
for a couple to split their income. This would be even more supportive
of this fundamental institution in our culture, in our Nation, of
marriage. I hope we can take that step on into the future.
I am delighted to have the chairman's support in this. I urge all my
colleagues in the name of family values, vote for this amendment.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are remaining 3 minutes 20 seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will finish on my statement.
Something very important is happening. What is important is, we are
apparently going to pass overwhelmingly the only amendment that will
have passed on this bill. On this very important tax cut measure, we
are going to add certainly the first amendment, and maybe the only one,
that says the marriage tax penalty is not going to be allowed to stand
in the United States of America. That is what we are doing today. The
bill provides for marriage tax penalty relief in 2005. I applaud the
committee for doing that. But I thought we should address it earlier.
That is why Senator Ashcroft, Senator Brownback, Senator Domenici,
Senator Roth, and Senator Baucus have come together and said that is
right. The people of this country who want to get married should not
have to pay $1,000 in taxes just because they got married. We are going
to end it today because we are sending a signal that is joined by the
House that this is our first priority.
So a high school football coach and a schoolteacher can get married
and not move into a bracket that is almost double just because they got
married. It hits our middle-income taxpayers the most. They are the
ones who are trying to save for a new house or a new car or to do
something special for their new baby. We are going to send a signal out
of the Senate, along with the House, to the President, saying: Mr.
President, we are going to have $1 trillion in income tax surplus. Are
you serious in saying you would veto this bill that gives marriage tax
penalty relief to our country, that gives pension relief to the women
who go in and out of the workforce who are unable to have the same
pension capabilities as those who never leave the workforce?
Is the President serious about vetoing a bill that provides for
Social Security, that provides for Medicare and education, and, yes,
the marriage tax penalty relief?
Mr. President, we are making a statement with this amendment. I am
proud the Senate is going to take up and I believe overwhelmingly pass
a
[[Page
S9889]]
priority of eliminating the marriage tax penalty in this country once
and for all. I urge my colleagues to give a unanimous vote for the
married people who have been living with a penalty that is not
warranted.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we yield back the remainder of the time.
Vote on Amendment No. 1462
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is now
on the motion to waive the Budget Act on the Bingaman amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--52
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 48, the nays are 52.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would object to any unanimous consent
regarding comments on my outfit this morning.
I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in the series be
limited to 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I urge my colleagues, please stay in the Chamber. We still
do have a number of amendments we will need to go through. Senator
Daschle and I have agreed that we want to limit those to 10 minutes
each, with 2 minutes between the 10 minutes for 1 minute of explanation
on each side. If we do that, I believe we can still finish this bill at
a reasonable hour.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Brig Pari and
Ed McClellan of the Finance Committee staff be granted floor privileges
for the duration of the consideration of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote On Amendment No. 1472, As Further Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on the amendment of the
Senator from Texas. Does the Senator request the yeas and nays?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be
added as an original cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1472, as further
modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]
YEAS--98
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--2
Hollings
Voinovich
The amendment (No. 1472), as further modified, was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Privilege Of The Floor
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two
staffers, Kathleen Strottman and Ben Cannon, have floor privileges.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of
my staff, Chris Stanek, have access to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Motion To Recommit
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk and ask that it
be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] moves to
recommit
S. 1429, the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999, to the
Committee on Finance, with instructions to report back to the
Senate within 3 days, with an amendment to reserve $20
billion over ten years for relief from the unintended
consequences of the Balanced Budget Act on teaching
hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health care
providers, rural and other community hospitals, and other
health care providers, by reducing or deferring certain new
tax breaks in the bill.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I understand I have 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me share with my colleagues what this
is. Under the Balanced Budget Act, we set out to save some $103 billion
in Medicare expenditures with respect to hospitals, home care, et
cetera. The problem is the unintended consequences of the way that has
happened, coupled with the managed care process, in fact, about $205
billion in Medicare payments has been reduced. The result is that, in
hospitals, home care facilities, and nursing homes all across the
country, all of our States are significantly affected in the quality of
care that is being delivered.
Special care units in hospitals are closing. Home care facilities are
refusing patients. There has been a significant reduction in the
quality of care across the country. Our teaching hospitals are
threatened. What we are saying is that we need to reserve some $20
billion in order to be able to adequately make up for the unintended
[[Page
S9890]]
consequences of the Balanced Budget Act.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, although the Kerry amendment is well-
intended, it is not germane to this reconciliation bill. The Finance
Committee is paying close attention to the concerns of health care
providers and beneficiaries. Over ten Medicare hearings have been held
this year, three focusing specifically on BBA 1997 policies.
The Finance Committee is also developing a Medicare package that will
address the many concerns in the Balanced Budget Act. The tax package
in no way interferes with this process.
Finally, I might add that even the President's Medicare proposal sets
aside a maximum of only $7.5 billion over 10 years to address BBA
fixes, $12.5 billion less than this amendment.
The amendment is not germane to this reconciliation legislation, and
I raise a point of order under section 305 (b)(2) of the Budget Act.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act,
I move to waive that section in that act for consideration of this
motion.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 helped bring us to this
era of budget surpluses and economic prosperity. But too much of the
actual savings used to balance the budget have come from Medicare.
At the time the BBA was enacted, those savings were expected to total
$116 billion over five years. Now, they are estimated by CBO to be
nearly twice as great--nearly $200 billion over five years. Such deep
cuts in Medicare are clearly unfair and unacceptable.
Not surprisingly, all of us are now hearing from bedrock health care
institutions across the country that are being devastated by these
excessive cuts. Teaching hospitals--community hositals--community
health centers and many others. We are hearing from those who care for
the elderly and disabled when they leave the hospital--nursing homes--
home health agencies--rehabilitation facilities. We are hearing from
virtually every one who cares for the 40 million senior citizens and
disabled citizens on Medicare. They are telling us in no uncertain
terms that Congress went too far.
This motion is the first step toward reducing the steepest cuts. It
would provide $20 billion over the next ten years to slow or eliminate
the harshest impact of the Balanced Budget Act. It would ensure that
the nation's hospitals and other health care facilities will be able to
care for senior citizens and the disabled in the years ahead.
With the retirement of the baby boom generation, the last thing we
should be doing is jeopardizing the viability of the many health care
facilities that depend on Medicare for their survival. These
institutions are being hard hit in cities and towns across the nation.
Often, the hospitals and other institutions that care for Medicare
patients also care for other patients as well. Health care in the
entire community is being threatened.
Teaching hospitals are on the receiving end of a triple-whammy. The
slash in Medicare reductions is leading to less patient care, less
doctor training, and less medical research at the nation's top
hospitals. In my own state of Massachusetts, for the first time in
history, some of the finest and most renowned teaching hospitals in the
country are now operating at a deficit. This situation is
unsustainable--and it is happening all over our country. We will all
suffer if these great institutions are forced out of business or into
the arms of for-profit corporations.
Community hospitals are suffering, too. Throughout my State of
Massachusetts, we are seeing red ink and cutbacks in essential
services. This, too, is happening all over the country.
In Massachusetts alone, house health agencies are losing $160 million
a year. Twenty agencies have closed their doors since the Balanced
Budget Act went into effect. Many others are seeing fewer patients, and
seeing their remaining patients less often. The home-bound elderly are
especially vulnerable, and are suffering even more. In just the last
two weeks, two Massachusetts nursing homes have declared bankruptcy.
This proposal is an important step to restore the viability of these
indispensable institutions in our health care system, and I urge the
Senate to approve it. We must undo the damage before it is too late.
The last thing we need to see on the doors of the nation's teaching
hospitals, community hospitals, home health agencies, and nursing
homes, is a sign that says, ``Closed because of the ill-considered
activities of the United States Congress.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 234 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--50
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kerrey
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 50, the nays are 50.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the motion falls.
Without objection, the motion to table is agreed to.
The Senator from Tennessee.
change of vote
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 234, I voted
``no.'' It was my intention to vote ``aye.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous
consent that I may be permitted to change my vote. It will in no way
change the outcome of the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Amendment No. 1467
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1467.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist) proposes an
amendment numbered 1467.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in a previous edition of the Record.)
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate
amendment that goes right at the heart of what we should be doing about
Medicare. It says Congress should be acting to modernize Medicare, to
ensure its solvency, and to include prescription drugs.
The congressional budget plan has $505 billion over the next 10 years
in unallocated budget surpluses that could be used for long-term
Medicare reform. In addition, the congressional budget resolution for
the year 2000 has specifically set aside $90 billion for this purpose.
Thus, my sense-of-the-Senate amendment says that the unallocated on-
budget surpluses provide adequate resources and that: No. 1, the
congressional budget resolution provides a sound framework for the
modernization of Medicare; No. 2, improving the solvency of Medicare;
and No. 3, improving coverage of prescription drugs.
Congress should act to accomplish these goals for the Medicare
program.
[[Page
S9891]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, with great respect, I must inform this
body that this amendment is pure fiction. It is pure fiction because
the House and the Senate this year have been using Congressional Budget
Office baseline numbers to predict what the surplus is or is not and
what is left for spending. Under that formula, there is virtually no
money in this tax bill left for discretionary spending.
A few days ago, a new chart suddenly popped up. The new chart comes
up with this money. How does it come up with this money? It basically
assumes that the Congress, over the next 10 years, is going to not only
cut discretionary spending under the caps as planned but then not raise
discretionary spending above inflation over the next 8 years.
I say that is a fiction--it is just not going to happen, so the money
is not there--developed by this recent new chart.
If it is an accurate assumption that there is no spending, then it
cuts discretionary spending by 50 percent, one or the other. It is a
fiction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on amendment No. 1467.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending
amendment violates 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
Mr. FRIST. Pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act, I move to waive
the Budget Act for the consideration of my amendment No. 1467, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 235 Leg.]
YEAS--54
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). On this vote the yeas are 54, the
nays are 46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of
order is sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Frist Medicare Amendment
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I voted against the Medicare Sense of
the Senate amendment numbered 1467, offered by Senator Frist. For the
benefit of my constituents in West Virginia, I offer a brief
explanation for why I voted the way I did.
I opposed Senator Frist's amendment because, in my judgment, it is
based on a fiction. As we all know, the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) has projected a $996 billion non-Social Security surplus over the
next ten years. The Frist amendment said that, even allowing for the
$792 billion tax cut, there was still enough money left over to provide
for the long-term solvency of the Medicare system. One need not be an
economist, or even an expert in budget policy, to understand why that
was just plain wrong.
The Republican tax cut plan will cost $971 billion over the next ten
years--$792 billion for the actual tax cut, plus $179 billion in
additional interest payments on the debt. That leaves $25 billion of
the non-Social Security surplus. From that amount, the Republicans have
said we can provide for emergency expenditures for natural disasters
and international conflicts, which averages $80 billion over ten years;
fund current operations of government; and reserve enough money for
Medicare. And, as I say, they would do all that without using the
Social Security surplus. As anyone can plainly see, that is just not
possible. In all good conscience, I could not vote for the Frist
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Motion To Recommit
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up a motion we have at the desk
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] moves to
recommit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with
instructions to report back to the Senate within 3 days,
with an amendment to correct the fact that the bill uses
Social Security surpluses for tax breaks by causing on-
budget deficits, taking into account both revenue losses
and additional interest costs caused by the higher levels
of debt that would result from the bill's enactment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the motion is very simple. It directs
the Finance Committee to correct the bill so that it does not raid
Social Security surpluses in any year to pay for tax cuts. In its
current form, this bill would use Social Security surpluses in each of
the second 5 years after enactment.
Altogether, $75 billion of Social Security money will be used to pay
for the broad-based tax rebates that are largely for special interests
and for the very wealthy. That is the intent, and it is inconsistent
with the Social Security lockbox that the Republicans claim to support.
If my colleagues are serious about stopping Congress from raiding
these surpluses, they will support my motion. The Finance Committee can
correct the problem very quickly, and then we can proceed to consider
the bill within only a few days.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
TABLE 3.--CBO ESTIMATE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET RESOLUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000-2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BASELINE SURPLUS OR DEFICIT (-)
On-budget.................................................. -4 14 38 82 75 85 92 129 146 157 178 996
Off-budget................................................. 125 147 155 164 172 181 195 205 217 228 235 1,901
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 120 161 193 246 247 266 286 334 364 385 413 2,986
====================================================================================================================================
EFFECTS OF THE BUDGET RESOLUTION'S POLICIES
Revenues................................................... 0 0 -8 -54 -32 -49 -63 -109 -136 -151 -177 -778
====================================================================================================================================
Outlays:
Discretionry \1\......................................... 0 0 0 0 10 6 -6 -24 -42 -55 -70 -180
[[Page
S9892]]
Mandatory................................................ 0 (\2\) 1 1 1 1 1 (\2\) (\2\) -1 -1 4
*COM008**COM008*......................................... 0 (\2\) (\2\) 2 4 7 10 15 20 26 32 117
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal \3\........................................... 0 (\2\) 1 3 16 14 5 -9 -22 -29 -38 -59
Total \4\.............................................. 0 (\2\) -9 -57 -48 -63 -68 -100 -114 -121 -139 -719
====================================================================================================================================
SURPLUS OR DEFICIT (-) UNDER THE BUDGET RESOLUTION'S
POLICIES AS ESTIMATED BY CBO
On-budget.................................................. -4 14 29 26 27 21 24 29 32 36 39 277
Off-budget................................................. 125 147 155 164 172 181 195 205 217 228 234 1,901
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 120 161 184 190 199 203 219 234 250 263 275 2,178
Memorandum:
Debt Held by the Public:
Baseline............................................... 3,168 3,473 3,297 3,066 2,835 2,584 2,312 1,992 1,640 1,267 865 NA
Budget resolution as estimated by CBO.................. 3,618 3,473 3,305 3,132 2,949 2,761 2,557 2,336 2,099 1,847 1,584 NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The effect of the 1999 supplemental appropriations bill (P.L. 106-31), which was enacted after the resolution was passed, has been added to the resolution totals. Also, the projections
include spending from contingent emergencies.
\2\ Less than $500 million.
\3\ Effect on outlays.
\4\ Effect on the surplus.
Note: NA = not applicable.
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this table clearly shows there is no
Social Security money in this tax cut.
Secondly, maybe the Senator is confused. CBO says the President still
does not lock up all the Social Security money. It is $30 billion
short.
Last, I suggest if they are really concerned about the Social
Security trust fund size, why are they filibustering against a lockbox
that would encapsulate it and make sure it is there?
In summary, the Senator from New Jersey is using the wrong chart. It
does not apply to the real situation. We are using no Social Security
money in terms of our tax cut.
I move to table the Lautenberg motion to recommit and ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the motion to recommit. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 236 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--45
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Amendment No. 1469, As Modified
(Purpose: To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes and the tax on
generation-skipping transfers, to repeal a step up basis at death, and
for other purposes)
Mr. KYL. I call up amendment No. 1469, and ask unanimous consent that
it be modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment
numbered 1469, as modified.
Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Beginning on page 226, line 1, strike through page 237,
line 5, and insert:
TITLE VII--ESTATE AND GIFT TAX RELIEF PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Repeal of Estate, Gift, and Generation-Skipping Taxes;
Repeal of Step Up in Basis At Death
SEC. 701. REPEAL OF ESTATE, GIFT, AND GENERATION-SKIPPING
TAXES.
(a) In General.--Subtitle B is hereby repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a)
shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts and
generation-skipping transfers made, after December 31, 2007.
SEC. 702. TERMINATION OF STEP UP IN BASIS AT DEATH.
(a) Termination of Application of Section 1014.--Section
1014 (relating to basis of property acquired from a decedent)
is amended by adding at the end the follow
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
